Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I have always heard the advantage of the Mace and the war hammer was that they where better against people in heavy armor . I saw a show on the history channel where they put a dummy in chain then had a man on horseback hit the dummy first with a broadsword then with a mace.. The dummy suffered no damage from the broadsword but did from the mace. Perhaps you could have a rule where metal armor provided less protection versus crushing weapons.

BTW I do like the rule mongoose came up for flexible weapons where they are harder to parry and plan on keeping that one.

And as far as large 2 handed weapons go. As pointed out one big advantage they had was they kept your opponent at bay. I once read where the 2 handed sword was better at defenses since the man with sword and shield would have difficulty getting pass the blade of 2 handed sword. I been thinking of giving 2 handed weapon a defensive bonus , such as having people with swords and other shorter weapon subtract 5% from their chance to hit to reflect the fact they have to find a way to close in.

BTw I remember reading one ta tic the Romans came up with when fighting Pike formation was to chop the heads of the pikes with their Short swords. One advantage short sword did have was that they where pretty sturdy weapons and they where not likely to break. Romans consider their short swords more sturdy then the Gauls broadswords, but that could also be due to the Roman more advance forging techniques.

And as far as Axes versus swords. I have understood the Battle ax was much cheaper then the broadsword and was very good at delivering a killing blow. I'm wondering if anyone knows the exact cost of Battle Ax versus Broadsword in say 13 century Europe for a real comparison

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Here is a list of weapons styles that were reasonably common in our RQ3 Game and why they were used.

For special rules we used impaling weapons did double weapon damage and slashing or crushing weapons received maximum damage bonus.

Bastard Sword and Shield (1d10+1)

Used by characters with at least a 1d4 damage bonus.

Battle Axe and Shield (1d8+2)

Exactly the same as the bastard sword. Has the same average damage as a bastard sword.

Great Sword (2d8)

Used by strong characters to get maximum damage potential and still have decent weapon armor points to parry with.

Troll Maul (2d8)

Exactly the same as a great sword, but favored by Trolls of course.

Great Axe (2d6+2)

Same average damage as the great sword or troll maul, but favored by Dwarves.

Long Spear (1d10+1)

Used by low strength characters that wanted a low strike rank and does great impaling damage.

Broadsword or Short Spear and Shield (1d8+1)

Used by low strength characters to get the chance of an impale.

Bow and Broadsword (1d8+1)

For low strength archers the broadsword does good damage and can impale. They would hold the bow in their off hand when pressed to melee and for defense they usually dodged. Favored by Elves.

Heavy Mace and Shield (1d10)

Only used by Trolls since there are better one-handed weapons.

Just about any one-handed weapon would be used as a backup weapon.

Daggers were of course carried by just about everyone, some practiced throwing them before charging with their two-handed weapons. Throwing axes were also used for this.

Particularly strong characters would sometime carry javelins so they could do more damage than the 1d8+1 of a bow.

Although not perfect, I thing the RQ3 rules provided for a good range of uses by the various weapons.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

30/420

Posted

As for the sword vs. spear argument, I find I agree almost completely with Nightshade.

The sword has many advantages over the spear, particularly if you are looking at it from an adventuring perspective.

The number one advantage of course is that it is easily sheathed, carried and drawn. This is a huge issue when you don't know if you will be walking across plains, wading through swamps, or climbing up or down chasms from one day to the next.

Swords are good for thrusting and slashing. Swords have a point for a reason, and that reason is to stab people. If faced with undead, which is not uncommon for your typical ancient warrior who lives in a fantasy world, you want something that can cut them up.

Spears do have reach. This advantage can't be ignored. The spear wielder will almost always get the first shot in. This makes it far superior to swords in many situations as the first shot is often the last. The possible counter to this is to parry and step forward when the spearman thrusts. If you parry successfully you are inside his range and can pretty much hack at him unopposed. He can't back up right away because he was moving forward when you stepped in. Of course if you miss the parry (or the spearman is good enough to avoid it) you are skewered and dead, see the point about getting the first attack in above.

While a thrust will always be faster than a swing, once a spear is pushed out of line a sword will be faster. There is nothing that will convince me that you can move a 5 to 6 foot spear back in line faster than a 3 foot sword. I have tried this myself. A 3 or 4 foot spear doesn't really have any reach advantage (some of the spear will be behind your hand to balance it) and, as a thrusting only weapon, would be inferior to the quicker rapier.

Spears are good for formations. Close formations don't allow for a lot of swinging, so a long thrusting weapon is ideal.

Spears are easy to use. Throw one peasant a spear and the other a sword and the one with the spear will have a much easer time with it. This is not to say that mastering the spear is easy, just that it is easier for a layman to use. Pointy bit toward enemy, then thrust.

Basic spears are relatively cheap and easy to make.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

30/420

Posted

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 problem is that there's no good way to know where to stop and start here; some weapons have more carry-over skill than they seem, and some don't. When I was in the martial arts I found that the baton and shortsword fighting I was learning had more to do with each other than the shortsword did with my foil fencing, for example. And some of this can apply to other sorts of skills. So there's a strong tendency to either lump things heavily or distinguish them completely. A similar problem to what sometimes arises with attribute distinctions (this comes up in BRP most noticeably in arguments about whether Size and Strength should be entirely independent).

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.

Not everyone feels that way, however, and GMs have to deal with all kinds, or this wouldn't even be an issue. After all, some people can make just as interesting a character (from their point of view) chosing from the most effective options, so why bother with the suboptimal ones?

Posted

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

That's only primarily important in religio-centric games, however; in non-Gloranthan games it a nonissue to sorcerous cultures or shamanistic ones.

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

That's about the only case where one weapon is particularly effective against a single class of opponent in the game, however (outside of the obvious spear versus cavalry case), and undead aren't always a big part of (or even encountered at all).

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

In my experience the second weapon was far more likely to be a missile weapon.

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

[/quote}

Again, why not just a second weapon of the same type?

That's exactly what I didn't like about the RQ2 crush; it was grotesque in the hands of nonhumans, almost meaningless for humans.

Posted

That's exactly what I didn't like about the RQ2 crush; it was grotesque in the hands of nonhumans, almost meaningless for humans.

That's a very valid point. I would like to see some difference btw slashing and crushing weapons though.

Ef plest master, this mighty fine grub!
b1.gif 116/420. High Priest.

Posted

That's a very valid point. I would like to see some difference btw slashing and crushing weapons though.

Well, the RQ:AIG crush (move the damage bonus up two categories and treat armor as half value) seemed to make it distinct enough.

Posted

Lord Twig wrote:

Spears do have reach. This advantage can't be ignored. The spear wielder will almost always get the first shot in. This makes it far superior to swords in many situations as the first shot is often the last. The possible counter to this is to parry and step forward when the spearman thrusts. If you parry successfully you are inside his range and can pretty much hack at him unopposed. He can't back up right away because he was moving forward when you stepped in. Of course if you miss the parry (or the spearman is good enough to avoid it) you are skewered and dead, see the point about getting the first attack in above.

This has not been my experience. It takes more than a ‘step’ to close the distance. Using a 6-9 foot spear when I have realized that I have missed, whether by my own fault or my opponent parrying, I am finding a new zipcode. He will need to rush me hard to close the gap. The rigid ‘his turn-my turn’ game rules may support your point but it is not what actually happens since, with real people, both can keep on moving while doing other things. Even when the opponent gets to his ideal sword range I have seen many spearmen clock them with a small mace or short sword that they drew while retreating. The haft of the spear is used to deflect blows or tie up the sword arm.

While a thrust will always be faster than a swing, once a spear is pushed out of line a sword will be faster. There is nothing that will convince me that you can move a 5 to 6 foot spear back in line faster than a 3 foot sword. I have tried this myself. A 3 or 4 foot spear doesn't really have any reach advantage (some of the spear will be behind your hand to balance it) and, as a thrusting only weapon, would be inferior to the quicker rapier.

Are you talking about using a spear one handed with a shield or two handed? If two handed I would like to know how you are going to move the spear out of line while it is being held with two hands? There are two basic ways that you can use a spear two handed. You can grasp it firmly at the butt and the mid-point and thrust with it like a bayonet. The range is not great but it lowers the risk of losing the weapon. The second method is to use it like a pool cue (billiards –or is it snooker?- for you Brits). Hold it by the butt with one hand (under no circumstances should you let go!) and slide it forward through the other one eventually letting go with the guide hand and continuing to power it by whole body motion if you need more range- up to 12 feet with a 9 footer. The range is much greater, power and speed are good. Down side is that it can be pushed off line easier- upside is that you are far enough away to effect recovery before your opponent can do much about it. If he does close jam the haft into his arm so that he can’t swing his arm forward enough to get to you. Throw him to the ground or pull your own dagger and get inside of his attacks. Works for me.

With one handed spear and shield (and why would you use a one-handed spear with out a shield unless you had no other choice?) remember to train up a shield attack to counter those that want to get close to you. Again I think that the turn sequence in RQ produces some artificialities. I believe that RQIV:AiG was addressing these with the Manuever skill and that perhaps should be looked into.

Do spearmen get clobbered by swordsmen? Yes but not by a simple effort. They need to commit to a rush, which has its own problems if they muff it. In close order the front ranks need to concentrate on parrying blows and tying up the offense. The second and third ranks should be killing.:) In loose order give ground to maintain the distance and poke, poke, poke!

__________________

Joseph Paul

"Nothing partys like a rental" explains the enduring popularity of prostitution.:eek:

Posted

This has not been my experience. It takes more than a ‘step’ to close the distance. Using a 6-9 foot spear when I have realized that I have missed, whether by my own fault or my opponent parrying, I am finding a new zipcode. He will need to rush me hard to close the gap. The rigid ‘his turn-my turn’ game rules may support your point but it is not what actually happens since, with real people, both can keep on moving while doing other things. Even when the opponent gets to his ideal sword range I have seen many spearmen clock them with a small mace or short sword that they drew while retreating. The haft of the spear is used to deflect blows or tie up the sword arm.

Two points here:

1) The spearman has to be very nimble to run backwards nearly as fast as the swordsman runs forward, while blocking with the spear haft AND drawing a backup weapon, and

2) if the spearman can reach the swordsman with a small mace or short sword, then the swordsman is NOT at his ideal range! :P

Are you talking about using a spear one handed with a shield or two handed? If two handed I would like to know how you are going to move the spear out of line while it is being held with two hands?

Not a problem; I've done it myself and had it done to me more often than not. Basically, push the spear point with the shield while winding up with the sword. On a 9 foot spear you get much better leverage than the spearman can get since his hands are at the most 3 1/2 feet apart. (Unless we are fighting orangutans?)

If he does close jam the haft into his arm so that he can’t swing his arm forward enough to get to you. Throw him to the ground or pull your own dagger and get inside of his attacks. Works for me.

Where have you done your fighting? My experinces are from the SCA, where throwing an opponent is not permitted (safety reasons).

Do spearmen get clobbered by swordsmen? Yes but not by a simple effort. They need to commit to a rush, which has its own problems if they muff it. In close order the front ranks need to concentrate on parrying blows and tying up the offense. The second and third ranks should be killing.:) In loose order give ground to maintain the distance and poke, poke, poke!

When fighting as a unit yes; rushing a close order unit in two or three ranks is suicidal. When fighting one-on-one a spearman is at a definite disadvantage against a sword-and-shield fighter of similar competence. I have seen very few spears in the lists, and even fewer used successfully (though a short spear-and-sword combo has been popular hereabouts recently).

Posted

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?)

In RQ2 specials did extra damage, criticals did the extra damage AND ignored armour. Either way, why do you think maces and mauls are preferred cultural weapons for trolls while humans use swords and axes? Perfectly good in-game reasons!

Posted

I have always heard the advantage of the Mace and the war hammer was that they where better against people in heavy armor . I saw a show on the history channel where they put a dummy in chain then had a man on horseback hit the dummy first with a broadsword then with a mace.. The dummy suffered no damage from the broadsword but did from the mace. Perhaps you could have a rule where metal armor provided less protection versus crushing weapons.

Not metal armour; flexible armour. What maille does is turning a cut from a sword into a blunt hit. The mace is already blunt so loses nothing, and is usually heavier.

BTw I remember reading one ta tic the Romans came up with when fighting Pike formation was to chop the heads of the pikes with their Short swords.

That is not a Roman idea, it came up during the rennaissance. German Landsknecht used two-handers to deal with Swiss Pike blocks. The guys hacking pike heads got double pay (doppelsoldner) for the risk they took getting in that close.

And as far as Axes versus swords. I have understood the Battle ax was much cheaper then the broadsword and was very good at delivering a killing blow. I'm wondering if anyone knows the exact cost of Battle Ax versus Broadsword in say 13 century Europe for a real comparison

Yes, it is much easier forging an axe head than a good sword. The weight and balance makes the axe hit harder, at the cost of a slower recovery.

As far as costs go, this list gives the price of an axe as 5d in 1457, while a "cheap sword (peasants)" cost 6d in 1350.

Posted

That is not a Roman idea, it came up during the rennaissance. German Landsknecht used two-handers to deal with Swiss Pike blocks. The guys hacking pike heads got double pay (doppelsoldner) for the risk they took getting in that close.

Yeah. Several years ago I GMed a Landsknecht game (of course in BRP) and during recherche I learned this fact about the Doppelsöldner too. But eventually the tactic to chop spears is older and the was used from the antique on against a wall of spears.

Posted

In RQ2 specials did extra damage, criticals did the extra damage AND ignored armour. Either way, why do you think maces and mauls are preferred cultural weapons for trolls while humans use swords and axes? Perfectly good in-game reasons!

I don't think that's a particularly good reason to do it; the specials should show the benefits of the weapons to most that use them, not just nonhumans.

Posted

In RQ2 specials did extra damage, criticals did the extra damage AND ignored armour. Either way, why do you think maces and mauls are preferred cultural weapons for trolls while humans use swords and axes? Perfectly good in-game reasons!

We always played that Specials did extra damage and criticals did normal damage but ignored armour. One of our RQ2 PCs had some Power Arrows that moved the roll up one level, success became special, special became critical and critical became critical impale, doing impaling damage ignoring armour.

In Glorantha, maces and mauls are trollish weapons because the troll wargods Zorak Zoran and Kaarg used maces and mauls. They are cultural weapons in Glorantha. Trollkin use spears because Argan Argar duffed over Lodril and took loads of his magical items, including the use of spears.

Other settings may well have other weapons for trolls.

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here. 

Posted

Sven noren wrote:

Two points here:

1) The spearman has to be very nimble to run backwards nearly as fast as the swordsman runs forward, while blocking with the spear haft AND drawing a backup weapon, and

2) if the spearman can reach the swordsman with a small mace or short sword, then the swordsman is NOT at his ideal range! :P

1) If he runs straight backwards yes. I am plagued both by spearman that can do that and shieldmen that know how to close fast. Things work better if you take a tip from Silver- retreat in the round, rather than a straight line.

2) Oh, absolutely!:D

Not a problem; I've done it myself and had it done to me more often than not. Basically, push the spear point with the shield while winding up with the sword. On a 9 foot spear you get much better leverage than the spearman can get since his hands are at the most 3 1/2 feet apart. (Unless we are fighting orangutans?)

Where have you done your fighting? My experinces are from the SCA, where throwing an opponent is not permitted (safety reasons).

I also do SCA and have more recently begun to work in some of the WMA texts (I.33, Talhoffer, Fiore, and I read Silver many years ago). As for throwing, you are correct but it appears in the fechtbuchs and it has happened quite by accident with me. It is impressive the amount of leverage a 6 foot stick gives you!

When fighting as a unit yes; rushing a close order unit in two or three ranks is suicidal. When fighting one-on-one a spearman is at a definite disadvantage against a sword-and-shield fighter of similar competence. I have seen very few spears in the lists, and even fewer used successfully (though a short spear-and-sword combo has been popular hereabouts recently).

I have seen spears used as 'cut lances' in pas d'armes. We have some true "spear gods" that can do a very good job. With skill being equal what I see is combats that are over with very quickly or get dragged out as the combatants keep probing.

__________________

Joseph Paul

"Nothing partys like a rental" explains the enduring popularity of prostitution.:eek:

  • 1 month later...
Posted

With the RuneQuest weapon tables, my players usually chose the same weapons over and over, because some weapons due to less damage or armor points just became filling on the weapon table.

Bows f.ex did 1d8+1. A throwing knife, dagger, axe or spear did less damage and had shorter reach, so why would anyone choose those missile weapons? The heavy crossbow was sometime employed due to its high one-shot damage, but the other crossbows where too slow for use (the one that didn't had puny damage so no reason to use it). Among the bows, the composite bow was the one who where always chosen.

Missile weapons showed this very well, but the same also applied for the melee weapons (though not as strongly). Some weapons where never chosen. With the STR and DEX requirement being as low as they where, there was really no reason not to pick a bigger weapon.

...

So long as I've played, none of my players have used a scimitar unless forced to due so, because the broadsword is just better.

Anyone else who've had this problem?

SGL.

Nope, We always start with cultural weapons, and players tend to keep the weapons they started with. For the secondary weapon, we tend to choose the lowest ENC on what is available when we shop, so we had Axe, Kukri, Gladius, Broadsword (for a big barbarian whose main weapon was a poleaxe), dagger.

For missile weapons, I have personally used longbow, composite bow (in Prax and Pent, I think no other is available), heavy crossbow, repeating crossbow, javelin and plumbata (and thrown a lot of the hand weapons I have used: Dagger, hatchet, short spear among others).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

I just thing you are the drohem from the alternate universe.:D

Well, one of you, see a double post! :eek:

You should give one of your avatars a beard so we can tell which one is from our universe. :P

This is gonna be fun :cool::D

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Posted

hehe...yeah, like Spock from that episode of Star Trek.

evildrohem, from the mirror universe. :eek:

evildrohemcy5.jpg

He probably only pays CCGs and CRPGs and never played a BRP game. >:->

Now all you have to set up an account. :thumb:

BTW, A alternate world where Alexander Hamilton killed Arron Burr and went on to become President of the US has some possibilities.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...