Which edition had the best weapons balance? I play exclusively AD&D 2.0 with some oldschoolers and I find that both the game design and the loot written into adventures blatantly favour longswords/bastard swords, short swords to a lesser extent, and basically everything else is crap, except a dagger for mages/rogues.
Do other system handle it better?
>>46613495
>nunchaku
>miss the days they were called nunchucks
>>46614823
>fug, mah picture
>>46613495
>that battle-ax
>that warhammer
Jesus Christ.
...
...
>starknife
...wait, why are there barbs on the ranseur's shaft?
Why do they do this?
Has anyone actually been in a game where anyone used a starknife?
>>46613495
Glorious weapons.
What are you supposed to do with the starknife or the ranseur?
They look like the blacksmith hates you more than the enemy.
>>46615724
Maybe there's a button on the handle of the starknife that activates a tiny engine that turns the stupid thing into a hand-held propeller.
>>46615797
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A-nhLuO0LY
I think OD&D has the best "balance"
Everything did the same damage and magic items were pretty much just whatever.
I think 5e is the closest thing we have gotten when it comes to dealing loot out evenly because most magic items are like, "A Bladed weapon" "A blunt Weapon" "Whatever dude, just as long as they can hit someone with it"
>>46615867
>Everything did the same damage
But didn't daggers attack 4 times as often as great swords did?
>>46615867
4e does weapons better, because then you don't have shit like "herp derp, longswords can only slash and morningstars can only pierce"!
5e has the best balance because it makes everything literally the exact same.
>>46616420
Before anyone tries to say it's a throwing weapon here's a dictionary definition.
glaive
ɡlāv/
nounliterary
a sword.
>>46616450
That's clearly a halberd in your picture
>>46615724
Im pretty sure the Starknife was mainly in there because it was some deities holy weapon (cause starknife sounds cool yo!) and then they needed an image for it
>tfw no games have cool katars
>>46616470
Nope. Here's one from Wikipedia.
>>46616512
All halberds
>>46616537
Look at the fucking Wikipedia entry before looking like a retard.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaive
>>46616592
Nothing but halberds there
>>46616607
>A glaive is a European polearm weapon, consisting of a single-edged blade on the end of a pole.
There. You're retarded. End of discussion.
>>46616673
Tell that to the 5e designers.
>>46616537
>>46616607
>Can't tell apart different pointy curved poleaxe choppy bits on sticks.
Just call shit poleaxes and be done with it.
>Glaive
>Guisarme
>Fauchard
Slightly off topic. Does anybody have images of some magical looking lucerne hammers?
>>46616830
Heres a nice variety of hammer heads, one of them should do you unless you wanted one with a magic aura or something
Narrative systems like Dungeon World balance them pretty well.
But seriously, a legitimate difference could be how they act on criticals. Halberds might pierce armour on a critical, but get stuck in an enemy on a fumble. Glaives do neither.
>>46616420
But anon, all polearms *are* exactly the same.
>>46616507
3.x had katars right in the players manual as standard.
Dreamlands, WHFRP's exotic weapons... Katars are probably one of the most standard "exotic" weapons in any game.
>>46616690
All the retardation aside, I do just want to point out that from 3.x to 5th, they have always misidentified and over designed weapons in the DnD franchise.
>>46617308
It was pretty bad in 2e too.
>>46613495
in 3rd edition and 3.5 polearms and spiked chains were king. In pathfinder it was just polearms.
In 4th, weapons didn't matter much.
>>46617372
Eh. I've met the poor saps who specialize in pole arms and do 1d10+8 damage per round at level 12.
>>46613495
I want to stab that artist with a starknife.
The warhammer is the worst for me, even if it is relatively inoffensive. It's the fact that it is so inoffensive, that people see the 1000lb hammer on a 1ft handle as the norm rather than a proper fucking warhammer like pic related.
>>46617458
That's a build problem and a system problem. Knowing how to efficiently stack modifiers ends up being way more important than weapon choice.
>>46617544
Yeah, Warmallets piss me off as well.
I mean they're functional, in the same way you'd use a Browning M2 for CQB.
>>46613495
Jesus the Starknife looks fucking atrocious.
Why does the ranseur have a barbed handle?
Why is the morningstar a treeroot with a letha; looking pineapple taped to it?
>>46617758
You don't need to CQB when the building and everything inside is no longer there
All editions have had their own problems.
>>46613495
>mace and morning star are separate categories
>>46615542
Cut you each time you pick it up to remind you how dumb you are for using that weapon
>>46620266
Believe it or not maces and morning stars actually have some differences. Morning stars usually have a long spike on the top and a whole bunch of smaller spikes, while on the other hand a mace will have small knobs or flanges instead.
>>46616420
What's the problem?
>>46615893
Pretty sure you're thinking of Holmes Basic, in which daggers get two times as many strikes as other weapons with no compensating factors.
Nothing beats the double weapons that came into being in 3.0. The Gnomish Hook Hammer might be the worst, you'd stab yourself with the hook end if you tried to follow-through with the hammer end.
>>46619891
What in the blue hell is that
>>46619891
>Glaive-Glaive-Glaive-Guisarm-Glaive
My god it's beautiful.
Did someone say starblade?
>>46617372
>In 4th, weapons didn't matter much.
Shit son, you have no idea. Tripping flail builds, headsman chopping-spear gouges, to not mention that many powers were only usable with certain types of weapons... weapons mattered a lot in 4e, and weapon types themselves were more important than other editions, because they conferred different bonuses thanks to the expertise feats.
>>46622082
So what you're saying is, morning stars should do piercing damage?
>>46623487
Well, in real life a morning star combines blunt force and piercing damage to kill/maim anyone it's struck by, so to make a long definition short >I would say half piercing, half blunt damage.
>>46623611
>>Although it might not be as effective against enemies who have DR against one or both of those types.
>>46623487
D&D damage types have always been weird, because they just assume the "main use" of the weapon while in reality virtually every weapon can do multiple "types" by D&D definition.
Top spikes, back spikes, murder stroke or pommel strike with a sword, strike with the haft of a polearm, slash with a spear tip, ect. Very few weapons are made with only one way to use them in mind.
>>46617372
You're thinking of 5th. In 4th, weapon choices are the center piece of your build if you're martial. They greatly influence your fighting style and bonuses.
>>46622129
It's boring as fuck.
![latest[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/AP6zWwh.jpg "latest[1].jpg")
>>46624046
Pic related
I mean, just look at these multi-faceted beauties
>Deals slashing damage and maybe +2 to Trip
Th-thanks Wizards
>>46624247
Is there an end to these weapons which you can hold without hurting yourself?
Don't say it's the black bit, because that would mean you are aiming a spike at yourself every time you point your weapon at the enemy.
>>46624293
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b62H8NZlAn0
>>46624130
RPGs shouldn't be math porn for weapons. The point at which you are making things more complicated just so you can statistically differentiate two pole-mounted slashing weapons of roughly similar reach is the point at which you've failed. And if you absolutely must have different stats fro glaives and halberds, then I would assume that the same thing should apply to all pole weapons, including (but not limited to) be de corbins, bill hooks, fauchards, guisarmes, lucern hammers, partisans, awl pikes, ranseurs, spetums, spontoons, voulges, and a whole host of intermediate / combo weapons like bill-guisarmes, glaive-guisarmes, guisarme-voulges and so forth.
>>46624046
4e ditched weapon damage types completely for that reason.
>>46619891
>Bohemian Earspoon
What the crap am I reading?
>>46615494
At least to offset it some of the other weapons look incredibly original and awesome.
>>46624046
You could always allow secondary damage types at a minus, like -1 to hit if you wanted the penalty to be minor (-2 to hit or -1 damage if you wanted a bigger penalty).
>>46624638
You'd be surprised at the sheer amount of different "pointy things on a stick" that have been imvented across the globe.
![polearms2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Enjn29k.jpg "polearms2[1].jpg")
>>46624638
>>46624672
That's just it though, most of those "secondary" types shouldn't come at a penalty because the weapons were purposefully built with this use in mind.
>>46624638
>Bohemian Earspoon
You know that's a real thing, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_earspoon
>>46624696
Nonsense. Just because a weapon is built with a secondary purpose in mind doesn't mean that it has been optimized for it. Yes, sometimes the best thing you can do is grab your sword by the blade and hit your opponent in the head with the quillons, but this process is going to be clumsy at best compared to something that's primarily designed to bludgeon, like a warhammer. It's not going to be ideally balanced for the task, and it should be obvious that using a blade as a handle is not an ideal situation.
>>46624716
Oh, I am quite certain that everything on that list is a real weapon which was actually crafted and used at some point in history. They weren't just spitting out silliness to use up their quota of hyphens, after all. It's just bizarre that they'd go out of their way to dig up a reference on a Bastard Glaive-Fauchard-Bardiche-Voulge to make it distinct from every other polearm on the list.
I would not be surprised to hear that the weapon was developed or common in some city/country named Bohemian, although why it is called an Earspoon remains beyond me.
>>46624797
>Oh, I am quite certain that everything on that list is a real weapon
Well, I'm pretty sure that a glaive-glaive-glaive-guisarme-glaive was rarely seen on the battlefield.
>>46624785
You are using one bad example to make a general rule. But even in your example you mention one of those weapons that are clearly designed for two different kinds of damage.
The war hammer has an end for blunt damage, yes. But if you look at the image >>46617544 provided then you'll notice you may very easily turn it around and do different damage with the same motion as before.
>>46624785
Double nonsense, your example with the sword is very much exceptional as a murderstroke is very much a tertiary use of a sword, but still most are just as capable of being swung as they are being thrust. That's not even getting into every other weapon where switching damage type is as simple as turning it in your hand, like a warhammer' back spike, or even easier to use than the weapon's "primary" use, like thrusting with a halberd's top spike.
>>46624899
Hell even using the sword example longer swords are easier to control half-sworded and thrusting then they are swinging them.
>>46624937
no urekt
>>46624951
Here's your (you)
>>46624883
>>46624899
In the case of the warhammer, I'd argue that bludgeoning and piercing should both be primary damage types. Depending on the sword, slashing and piercing should as well. Some are a bit more optimized for one or the other (and with others, it's more than a bit more). But this doesn't mean that any secondary usage of a weapon is going to be as efficient. Keep in mind that I was responding to the following examples "Top spikes, back spikes, murder stroke or pommel strike with a sword, strike with the haft of a polearm, slash with a spear tip", many of which are clearly not optimal uses (whereas others are only arguably or conditionally so). If you're fighting against a monster that can't be slashed and you have to rely solely on the back spike of your weapon, in most cases this is going to significantly limit your attacks and should, in fact, give you a penalty (of course, a lot depends on the design of the weapon in question). However, if the ultimate point is that trying to give each weapon a single damage type is silly, I could agree with that. 2e gave a number of weapons multiple damage types, like a halberd getting both piercing and slashing. I'd still say it was overly stingy (you can't stab with sword?), but I suppose that somewhere along the lines you have to make sacrifices in the name of simplicity / workability.
>>46624797
>although why it is called an Earspoon remains beyond me
Found this online, though I can't attest to its veracity:
For centuries [Bohemia and Germany] have engaged in battle, or at least shared nasty glances across the border. In the early 1400s the strife was great indeed, due to religious differences and political infighting. This fighting led to the emergence of slangish German names for many Bohemian weapons -- some of them quite odd.
One weapon that was used by the poor folk of Bohemia was a large club with a knot on the end, sometimes likened to a shillelagh (the Bohemians have a Celtic heritage). This eventually came to be known among Germans as the Bohemian Earspoon (böhmischer ohrlöffel). The reasons for this name are less than clear to someone who does not speak medieval German, but even today the word löffel is used in a number of idioms relating to death (den Löffel weglegen, literally 'to put the spoon away', means to die) and violence (eine löffeln means 'to hit about the head'). It is also possible that the etymology is related to the fact that the böhmischer ohrlöffel was a spoon-shaped club used for hitting people on the side of the head.
Now comes the confusing part. Another weapon that appeared during this time was essentially a heavy spear with two additional spikes set at right angles to the spearhead at the base of the head. It could be used for stabbing, for slashing at horse's legs and reins, or when swung like a bat the sideways-facing spikes were very effective at piercing armor. The German name for this weapon was the knebelspiess, the 'toggle spear'. It is nothing like the farmer's club. It is what we commonly refer to as a Bohemian Earspoon.
cont.
>>46625188 cont.
There is one connection between the two weapons; knebelspiess may have been first used as a jagdwaffe and a bauernwaffe, a weapon for the huntsman and the farmer. The 'toggles' referred to in 'toggle spear' may have originated not as spikes per se, but as a peg used to hold the spearhead to the shaft, or alternatively, to prevent a boar from running up the spear and mauling the hunter. While a soldier would prefer a more refined weapon, a farmhand herding swine or hunting wild boar would not be too picky about the construction of their spear. Both the club and the spear originated as lower-class weapons.
So perhaps the Germans started calling the spear a böhmischer ohrlöffel simply because it didn't really matter much what the peasants were swinging. It is a small step, after all, to generalize 'farmer's club' to 'farmer's spear'. Whether or not this is actually what happened is anyone's guess. Perhaps there is a better reason for calling a spear an earspoon, now lost in the mists of time.
>>46625188
>den Löffel weglegen
It's "den Löffel abgeben", or to "give away the spoon".
>>46625188
>>46625194
Ah, so that's a possible reason why. At least I'm not the only one confused as to why someone might call a spear an earspoon.
>>46613495
They're all shit. Here's how weapon balance actually works:
>dagger trumps just about everything but you've got a high chance of getting wrecked in the process. Maintaining a perimeter with a greatsword or flail makes you immune to dagger attacks, otherwise you drop your weapon and grapple
>Bigger swords always beat smaller swords, although there are out of combat implications to using a sword to large to sheathe at your hip
>Maces and warhammers are highly effective against armor, particularly while wearing armor yourself
>Axes add to intimidation but are worse than fighting unarmed except for murdering unarmed peasants (unless it's got a spike, then see above). Two handed axes double the intimidation factor but are even worse in combat
>Flails start off strong, and reduce in damage every turn
>Polearms are relatively weak by themselves but individually become stronger the more people with them you stick together
That's basically all the weapon types you need.
>>46625256
>>Bigger swords always beat smaller swords,
Don't you have a boat that you should be waiting on?
>>46625293
motherfucker is off the boat.
>>46625256
>>Maces and warhammers are highly effective against armor,
Ignoring firearms, there is nothing actually "effective" against plate armor.
Some weapons are just less ineffective than others.
>>Polearms are relatively weak by themselves
Spears beat swords when there's no shields or armor to even the odds.
>>46625330
Did you forget that they still need to get back?
>>46622598
Attack Matrix. If you are wielding a Glaive and attacking someone with a Glaive, you attack with a -3. However if you are attacking a Bardiche you are attacking with a +1, same as if you are attacking someone with a Fauchard-Fork.
Really simple and intuitive, rather straight forward and easy to learn and remember.
>>46625293
Don't think I caught the reference.
>>46625334
True. I suppose I should have said "most effective." They're the only weapons (along with halberds and the like) that are at all effective attacking the plate directly. They have small spikes or flanges that bite into the armor and allow it to deal a full-power strike instead of glancing off.
>Spears beat swords when there's no shields or armor to even the odds.
Not really, unless you're new to the sword or scared to close in. Spears can only thrust effectively, which is easy to deflect. Once you get past the point it's just a matter of getting a hold on the haft and stabbing him in the face.
>>46625446
Stop posting.
You're literally making arguments that modern day practitioners AND Renaissance sword masters disagree with.
There isn't a single fighting man in history who would WANT to take most sword against a spear unarmored.
>>46623611
except in real life the spikes on morning stars were not for puncturing people
they were to create a single point where armor could be dented or possibly even pierced, allowing the entire force of the blow to connect with the armor.
this is the same purpose that flanges on maces served, or why many war hammers had a small spike or bump on the hammer face
a smooth mace would glace off the armor and most of the force would be wasted
>>46625256
It's probably something like:
>Range first. Person with the best range gets to attack first. Attacks could be straight attacks, feints, etc. Defender needs to either back off, parry, or get hit (which stops their movement).
>Successfully parrying an actual attack means the defender can move forward.
>Attacker can respond by moving back out of range, unless defender is faster.
>Weapons have an effective range, both in the furthest they can reach and the closest. Can't attack outside the furthest range, can't use in combat inside the closest.
>Weapons can be used in multiple situations, with different grips. Swords can be used as daggers in grapple, by half-swording. Axes can hook limbs, etc.
>Weapons have varying effectiveness against different armor, depending on how used. A dagger in a grapple probably ignores most armor. A hammer-weapon is moderately effective with a good swinging distance. Your katana means jack shit against full plate, though.
>Sharper weapons are best against unarmored foes. It's easier to cut off an arm then try to disable it through breaking the bones, after all.
Your comments about pretty much everything are just silly.
>>46625737
Danngers are only effective if they can find gaps.
If you're grappling a plate armored man with mail voiders, there may be as few as TWO areas a dagger can attack-his eye slit, and the bottom of his feet.
You actually want to take a sword into the grapple. I makes a good lever for throwing people around, and you need that same leverage to pierce the mail guarding his armpit.
>>46625761
a rondel with enough force behind can burst links in mail, and is sturdy enough to pry plates apart to find a gap
>>46625783
>pry plates apart
I feel like you don't understand how armor is made.
I think one of the reasons why pen and paper depictions of weapons are so bad is because of how we classify weapons.
The surviving fencing manuals I've read don't always distinguish so much between different swords in the same way we don't always differentiate between different kinds of car or gun.
"long sword" can mean many different things depending on the time period
>>46625787
in the shoulders, knees, elbows, crotch, or under the gorget there will be gaps
>>46625812
(if the gorget was separate, if it was build into the breastplate then obviously there will not be a gap)
>>46616911
Anyone got more pictures like this? For all kinds of weapons, even handle designs would be awesome.
>>46625543
I'll accept your appeal to authority if you post some sources. Until then, I'll stick with my own experience and the fact that Fiore pretty much just says "it's easy, just close and stab the fucker" and moves right on.
>>46625737
That's all fantasy tropes, though. It's not the way combat actually works. For example, feints aren't actually a thing, unless you count things like tricky footwork or changing guards in a way that looks like the start of an attack (ochs right to ochs left, for example). It's stupid to make an attack without following through. What if the other guy slips or sees his ex in the crowd? You just gave up your chance to cut him. And then when you make your real attack and it's parried, you'll be butthurt things didn't go as planned. There are no feints; everything is a real attempt to cut your opponent that you fully expect not to connect, but you'll damn well run him through if it does.
>>46625761
A voider is a gap, and one that a rondel will exploit quite effectively. The only time you can afford to be dismissive of a dagger is when you're wearing Richard VIII's tournament armour.
in rolepaying games why are gambesons considered to be as poorly armored as regular clothing? a properly made gambeson was actually pretty decent armor, especially against cuts. Sure it wasn't as good as mail, but it was a little bit lighter and a lot cheaper.
>>46626094
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2YgGY_OBx8
>my own experience
I'm sure that experience exists, given that you've repeated a number of pop culture myths verbatim. If you're beating spears with a sword, you're fighting incompetents.
I'll stick wit the experience of a man who actually teaches swordsmanship for a living.
He'll tell you the same is true of the fuckign quarterstaff, which is is funadantally worse than the spear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQv_mCNkAbo
As does silver, who contends that the staff, and all staff weapons-spears, bills, and glaives, and glaives in particular, are the single best weapons.
>>46626132
It's somewhat hard to represent in an abstract system, most p&p games frankly have shit combat, and they're designed and written by people who are utterly ignorant about arms and armor.
>>46626215
>It's somewhat hard to represent in an abstract system, most p&p games frankly have shit combat, and they're designed and written by people who are utterly ignorant about arms and armor.
I get that and I like role playing games best when they do what they are good at - role playing.
but many people really like the emphasis on combat and love to optimize their characters, leading to some very strange things.
For that matter I've never seen bucklers represented properly either. They are usually treated as really bad shields, or sometimes just a bonus to armor class. (of the two depictions, the bonus to armor class is the better of the two I think.)
>>46617372
Yeah nah, you're wrong. If anything, weapons in 4e were the defining trait for fighters, and pretty important for many other weapon users.
>>46626215
>>46626270
Riddle of Steel
>The game's combat system is based heavily on Jacob Norwood's real-world historical martial arts studies. He is the president of the HEMA Alliance, was a Senior Free Scholar in the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts, and John Clements, the director of that organization, recommends the game for its martial realism. This combat system is usually marketed as one of its key selling points.
It's a bit dated though, but there have been a few attempts at keeping the concept alive like Blade of the Iron Throne and Song of Sword right here on /tg/. Personally I don't like the direction either of those games went and prefer Riddle proper but to each their own.
>>46624423
Don't ever go look at Song of Swords.
>>46626215
>Spears are still effective at close range!
>Unless he grabs the shaft, at least
Thanks for making my point, Matt.
And anyone that raves about staves is probably using full force with a rattan or bamboo stick in sparring. If you can hit someone with full force without crippling them, you're not using a weapon; you're using a toy. A steel sparring sword is a very close approximation of an actual weapon, while a rattan rod doesn't move a whole lot like an actual iron banded hardwood staff. It's more like a fencing foil in that will always touch because it weighs nothing and bends itself in half around anything you put in its way.
>>46626325
There's also Band of Bastards.
>>46626490
>Band of Bastards
Probably not the best choice of names considering all that comes up on google is porn.
>>46619431
Well that doesn't refute my point.
My point being that it's too impractical for anything other than wholesale destruction from out of harm's way
>>46626456
Going to quote Skallargrim from YouTube who certainly knows more than I do here.
It's a lot easier to move your weapon away from a strike than it is to successfully strike a weapon.
Someone trying to parry your spear needs to be able to strike or grab it to get it out of the way. That means THEY will have to proactively strike at your weapon. You can just sit back with them at range and take a stab anytime they attempt to close. Unless there's a pressing need to get close for the spearman, they can basically control the fight.
Source: got beaten up by tall people a couple times
>>46626507
>Skallagrim
Ignorant cuck.
>>46626504
Oh wow, that's hilarious.
http://www.grandheresy.com/
>>46626507
>Skallagrim
Trigger warnings, please.
>>46626558
Yeah, I finally found it by specifying "band of bastards RPG." I'm going to give it a readover but it looks promising as a decent successor that doesn't go way overboard with the changes like Blade and Song did.
>>46626587
It seems a lot more streamlined than SoS, probably easier to teach to people.
>>46625543
>There isn't a single fighting man in history who would WANT to take most sword against a spear unarmored.
This is demonstrably false. There's plenty of depictions of German judicial duels where both combatants start with a spear and a sword and one or both decide to throw the spear and keep the sword. There's also plenty of historical references to throwing swords and modern testing has shown that it's a surprisingly accurate and clearly lethal attack, so the combatants are keeping their swords because they want a sword.
>>46616420
A halberd and a glaive are basically the same damn thing at DnD's level of detail.
>>46625256
>polearms
>relatively weak
Polearms are the most devastating melee weapons of the Middle Ages. Fully armoured knights have been killed by a halberd splitting their helmet down to the chin.
Problem is they are heavier and less wieldy than a spear and fairly inconvenient to carry around day to day in general. Pretty awful in a cramped dungeon as well.
On another note I have noticed that people on the internet do not really appreciate how vitally important reach is. Even seen people argue a rapier has no real advantage over other swords because of its enormous length advantage.
>>46626764
What's the middle one?
>>46626771
Early halberd.
>>46626764
>Polearms are the most devastating melee weapons of the Middle Ages. Fully armoured knights have been killed by a halberd splitting their helmet down to the chin
The problem isn't their ability to inflict damage, it's their ability to hit things. In single combat where you only have one halberd swinging at you, avoiding it isn't such a big deal. On a battlefield where you could have any number of halberds swinging at you from any direction, you might be rolling for anal circumference at any moment. The point I was trying to make is that sword has a slight advantage in 1v1, but polearms are far superior to swords even in a 3v3.
>>46626822
>In single combat where you only have one halberd swinging at you, avoiding it isn't such a big deal.
That is outright bullshit. Halberds are not slow lumbering weapons in the strike. It can also thrust just like a spear which is not even close to easily avoided.
The sword only has an advantage if he can get right up in halberd guys face without being hit which is unlikely unless he sneaks up on him. Or if the fight takes place in a confined area.
>>46626864
Sure, it can strike quickly. Everything strikes quickly when your frame of reference is Hollywood or D&D. But it suffers the same problems as the spear when you're poking out defensive, but multiplied because of the balance, and the relatively short length of the axehead makes it easy to step in and avoid. If it's a big enough swing to break my collarbone through armor, I'll have time to stick you first.
>>46626822
>>46626864
Halberd are well known to be exceptionally good for duels and the battlefield. They can be used to full effectiveness at range and close quarters.
Sword fags resent it and D&D fags don't get it but halberds were basically the best melee weapon, period.
>>46626930
You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>46626930
Are you trying to troll me? You just repeated a bunch of Hollywood myths outright. Nobody is doing 'big swings' that are slow and open them up unless they are idiots or desperate.
Do tell though, what problems does a spear user 'suffer' when he is in a position of almost total advantage and can attack his opponent without being attacked?
>>46626941
>muh greatest weapon ever, honorably folded over a thousand times
The halberd is a weapon of war, used for war. Would you use a 20mm anti-materiel rifle for a gentlemen's duel? Maybe, if you're a badass. Would you carry one around for self defense? Probably not, but it's legal in Texas. Would it actually be more effective than a handgun if you were mugged? Not really.
>>46626771
>>46626812
That's a bill, actually, more specifically an English bill.
>>46626981
I'm going to have to side with history on this one and go with >>46626941
>You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>46626941
They are still going to be less than ideal in a dungeon context though unless you find a long corridor to defend.
The biggest you probably want there is a poleaxe or longsword.
>>46626978
Oh, sorry, you're right. You halberd is sharpened to a molecular edge and can shear clear through a bascinet with just a flick of the wrist. Men at arms wearing plate armor were the equivalent of Stormtroopers wearing armor that doesn't even stop rocks thrown by baby koalas. How could I have forgotten?
>>46626981
What the hell do modern handguns have to do with the relative merits of medieval weapons in a dungeon fantasy context?
Besides, the good old hat and knife combo is the best self defence weapon.
>>46625194
Cheers for being clear and informative.
>>46627007
Clearly the cello is the greatest weapon ever created.
>>46627016
So this is the part where you try to save face by feigning superiority by making mocking posts instead of just conceding that you were mistaken, eh?
Cool. At least we've reached the end of this silly argument.
>>46627010
>They are still going to be less than ideal in a dungeon context though unless you find a long corridor to defend.
Dungeoneering is a wholly different beast in itself. Honestly in a world where that kind of close quarters fighting against fantastic beasts is common I wouldn't be surprised the people would invent new weapons entirely for exactly that situation.
>>46627043
>not this
Talking about silly duelling weapons is much better than humouring a guy who thinks movies are real but accuses others of getting their knowledge from them.
>>46627049
My point is that anything like
>>46626764
>Fully armoured knights have been killed by a halberd splitting their helmet down to the chin.
Is going to be a hell of an overhand strike. It's not the kind of thing you get hit by when you can see it coming and one step forward or backward is all it takes to avoid it.
>>46627049
You make a good point.
Most Fantasy RPG's however just put real world ancient/medieval weapons in then throw you into caves full of monsters with them.
Still it can be a fun discussion working out what works and what doesn't. Plate is crap for most adventurers for example because of how long it takes to put on if nothing else. A hauberk and brigandine gives the same torso protection but is easier to pack up and much faster to don without a squire helping you. Unlike the old days hirelings seem to be a lot less common for RPG parties today.
>>46627089
Which does not change the fact that a Halberd is still a capable 1 on 1 weapon and a sword user does not have an advantage except in very specific circumstances.
You still never explained how a spear user in a position of huge advantage has problems.
>>46625188
>Bohemia
>"the Bohemians have a Celtic heritage"
>Bohemia is the latinized form of the Gothic words Boi (the local Goth tribe) and haim (home).
Stopped reading this garbage.
>>46613495
OD&D with Chainmail. 1e to a lesser degree. 4e is third place. 2e and 3e not at all. Not sure about 5e.
>>46627302
>>46617544
It's probably drawing on Mjolnir as inspiration, but that's not really an excuse, as its short handle was never claimed to be a good feature.
>>46627100
Bloodborne is all about this.
Turns out fighting wolf beasts in cramped streets isn't the best place for a lance and full plate. Instead, axes, hatchets, cleavers and pitchforks or spears come out.
Of course most of the weapon transformations aren't exactly practical, and we're not even getting into everything wrong with the Kirkhammer, but the concept is neat and it makes for a fun game.
Translating to tabletop, the idea of dungeoneering bands carrying things like hatchets, cleavers and shortened boar spears isn't exactly new. Hell, maybe you'd have professionals with flamethrowers and sealed suits showing up after one too many undead raids.
>>46625256
>Flails start off strong, and reduce in damage every turn
Huh? When did this turn into a videogame?
Ok, unless you're a martial artist with a Dangpa, a Retiarius Gladiator or a poor fisherman who couldn't afford a proper weapon, is there any reason to use a Trident as a polearm?Solely as a physical weapon. Magical Tridents used by overprotective fathers need not apply.
>>46631436
Multiple points only very rarely make sense in a thrusting weapon. It's basically the opposite of what making the end of your weapon pointy is about.
You increase the surface area you are attacking and that you have to penetrate.
They are also easier to fend off.
Many pole arms come with all sorts of hooks and stuff, but if you look at >>46626812 >>46626764 >>46624423 you'll see that they try to avoid increasing the width of the weapon significantly, and there's only ever 1 thrusting point.
The trident has 3 heads because fish are so damn quick and it's difficult to hit them. Humans are larger and slower.
>>46617372
>In 4th, weapons didn't matter much
What the fuck am I reading.
Weapon type mattered more in 4e than it did in any other edition.
Shit do you not know why the Gouge was god-tier?
>>46631436
There is the Brandistock, a three-pronged polearm that was more for self defence then combat and the Ranseur, which the side prongs served as a guard. See pic.
Also China had a 'Trident Axe' as I've only ever heard it called, which was spear with two crescent blades on either side. This was the axe part.
>>46630261
Unless we're talking about threshing flails, actual historical flails were 1-3 balls roughly the size of a 2 lb sword pommel attached to a length of chain. Even assuming a two-handed flail with a single ball, the balance of the weapon and the fact that the bulk of the mass isn't directly attached to your hands means that it's very slow (think Hollywood slow) to start a strike from a guard position. The only way to make it a useful weapon is to keep it moving at all times using looping motions like later greatsword styles.
When fighting against a flail, getting hit by one will fuck you up. Even in full plate armor, it will easily knock you down, and then a couple more hits will crush you to death. The only way to fight a flail is to keep out of range, but close enough that he has to maintain momentum.
>>46627273
See: >>46625446
>>46626094
>>46626456
>>46626710
>>46631928
Spear attacks are not easy to deflect - for the simple reason that the spear is faster in its vertical movement than the sword is.
Sure you can try to grab a spear, but the other guy's got two hands on it so his grip on it will be stronger - unless you're willing to let go of your sword at which point you'll both be holding the spear, but its business end is still pointing at you, so you are in a disadvantage. Did you know that you can grab swords as well?
People don't do it because grabbing your enemy's weapon in the middle of a fight is fucking stupid.
>>46631928
No, provide EVIDENCE. Not you ignorantly posting your misconceptions.
The spear user can attack any attempt to close or to grab his weapon and he has reach which in open combat is a huge advantage. He can attack the swordsman with impunity if he can maintain distance. And they have far more leverage than the sword guy so their weapon is faster and harder to push aside.
It takes a big skill disparity in favour of the swordsman to make swords vs spear fair.
What do you guys think of making each of the weapons some kind of unique flavor? I quickly drafted this up as both an offensive and a defensive weapon. I dont know, anything to make the weapons actually feel unique.
>>46632322
>the greatsword is the weapon of choice for the zweihander
>incest
>>46632419
>incest
explain
>>46632457
Zweihanders are greatswords.
>>46624657
>starknife
>incredibly original
Are you 12?
>>46632322
>using zweihander as a noun describing a guy who uses a two-handed sword
This is stupid as shit.
>>46632570
>How many spears are in your legion?
>How many bows defend that hill?
>The enemy force of lancers is too many.
>>46632611
Spearmen.
Archers.
Oh, you got lancer right.
>>46632457
"Zweihander" just means "two-hander" in German. A zweihander is a two-handed sword, a greatsword.
>the greatsword is the weapon of choice for the zweihander
>the greatsword is the weapon of choice for the greatsword.
>>46632656
I was explicitly referring to the class, the zweihander, from the path of war books.
>>46632682
>>46632656
>>46632630
>>46632570
>>46632496
>>46632419
Ok, I admit my ignorance, and apologize. But that really wasent the point of the post. How would you give each weapon some kind of personality? Would a talent tree for each weapon do the trick?
>>46613495
HOW DO I KILL PEOPLE WITH THE STAR KNIFE
>>46632730
>How would you give each weapon some kind of personality?
I wouldn't go out of my way to do it. If I feel like a weapon ought to be able to do something in particular, then I'll add it. But nothing for the sake of diversity.
>Would a talent tree for each weapon do the trick?
RPGs have been overloaded with special feats and powers already.
>>46632754
You hide it in their food and hope they choke on it.
>>46626587
>>46626608
People were doing some fights with it over in the SoS thread. If you aren't a fan of SoS due to complexity, it's probably what you want. They abstracted range quite a bit more into a simple bonus, and weapons are build-your-own rather than a large list. I'm an SoS man myself because I don't trust the idea of standard TN6 for all weapons, but if you're the guy who isn't a fan of the huge weapon lists and complexity you should like what you see.
>>46632799
I agree with you immensely, and pathfinder is the worst offender, but in my experience, players who play as a martial really define themselves by their weapon, and as it is now, weapons are bags of stats, most arent even thematic. There is nothing heroic about a longsword, clubs and maces dont counter heavily armored foes, even rapiers dont feel like dueling weapons. they are just "the dex sword". So I felt like adding talent trees in for all of the major weapons would help players define themselves further with their weapon of choice. not that all they are is their equipment, but that their equipment says something about them.I also want to make several focuses for spellcasters that have effects that slant spells for one purpose or another, usually having a bigger downside than a plus, but allowing a caster to specialize if they want.
>>46632496
The term "greatsword" was pretty much what people during the later early modern period used for everything that wasn't an officer's smallsword/sabre regardless of purpose, handedness, or size relative with each other. Synonymous with "archaic shit that I put over my fireplace".
A zweihander is a zweihander. When translated to English a zweihander is a two-hander.
>>46632909
Are you sure rapiers are dueling weapons?
Isn't the reason why we think of them as such because by the time the rapier came around the battlefield started to be dominated by ranged weapons that made heavy armor relatively useless?
>>46632977
...We are talking about the fantasy interpretations of weapons... right? I think of them that way, because thats how they are in stories and thats how they would work in a fantasy game.
I dont mean to get all ass blasted at you mate, you arent being terrible at all, but that kind of historically accurate attitude has been pissing me off a lot lately. Its a god damn fantasy game.
Any recommendations for systems with good weapon variety and rules?
>>46633035
Point taken.
>>46632064
>Sure you can try to grab a spear, but the other guy's got two hands on it so his grip on it will be stronger
Except you have more leverage because you're further from the fulcrum. Also, at this point you're charging at him with a pointy sword. Either he gives up on trying to poke you or he dies, because he can't possibly back up as fast as you're rushing him.
>but its business end is still pointing at you, so you are in a disadvantage.
Except that the whole point is that the business end is pointing past you and you're trying to keep it that way.
>Did you know that you can grab swords as well?
Yes, it's incredibly effective, especially against people that would prefer to dance around than grapple (rapier)
>People don't do it because grabbing your enemy's weapon in the middle of a fight is fucking stupid.
Except lots of people did do it. I could spend the rest of the day posting medieval pictures of grabbing sword blades.
>>46632213
>No, provide EVIDENCE
Provide some of your own. If the spear is so much better, why was it common to throw the spear and keep the sword when throwing the sword was an equally acceptable practice?
>>46633065
GURPS is probably the system that handles this best outside of Song of Swords/Riddle of Steel.
Between them Low Tech and Martial Arts cover pretty much everything about low tech combat you could want out of a game.
>>46633460
>at this point you're charging at him
No, you've just impaled yourself on the spear. You're not charging anywhere anymore.
You are also talking about the battlefield where people are heavily armored. Nobody here has called the spear a particularly good can-opener.
Like your image? Plate armor.
>>46633460
Are you talking about full plate duels?
If you are going to make something specific in a way that changes everything about combat you should say so. Shields and full plate are the only two things that mitigate the huge advantage the spear has in an open area. And even if the sword guy has a shield he is still not having an easy time of it.
>Also, at this point you're charging at him with a pointy sword
Do you even know what a stop thrust is?
>>46633574
No, I'm explicitly talking about 1 on 1 dueling. I've already stated that polearms are for certain the most effective weapons in a battle.
>>46633641
Sorry, I can't seem to find a single picture of a judicial duel that isn't from Talhoffer or using goofy weapons. Please stand by while I practice my Google-fu.
>>46627352
Did you just try to refute a point by posting an alternative history map?
>>46633065
How much variety and specificity do you want?
>>46634330
Most weapons act differently and can do special things unique to them, or have different traits?
5e has pretty cool weapons.
Variety is nice but complexity is detrimental to an effective game. veteran players will have fun regardless of the learning curve and newbie players won't have fun if the learning curve is too high.
>>46616420
this is a great example of this. Just because there are two different weapons that function in different ways doesn't mean that they have to be represented differently for the sake of it.
>>46613495
>The lance doesn't have a point.
>Shortsword looks like a hunting knife, not a thrusting weapon
>Longsword is Warcraft thick with fucking scrapes and cracks in it like it's made of plaster.
>Warhammer and Battleaxe are Xboxhueg
>Ranseur has a bunch of impracical spikes addes near the bottom.
>The light crossbow is a bullet crossbow
>Spear designed for maximum friction
>Not even gonna mention the Spiked chain.
I get that the game is for people who like cartoon violence, anime physics and edgy characters with giant pauldrons or whatever, but jesus it hurts to look at.
>>46634949
Doesn't need two entries in the book, either. Could've done Halberd/Glaive as one and Polehammer as a bludgeoning version rather than two identical slashing.
Or make weapons unique, but with different positives. A halberd might have armor piercing while a glaive might do more damage.
>>46619891
>>46625394
That's not in any core 1st edition book, though.
Attack Matrices are also based on the level of the attacker's class field vs. the AC of the target, i.e., the target is easier to hit with a weapon as a fighter than a magic-user of the same level. Clunky, but that's what you get from guys who designed war games first.
It's also piss-easy if you can read a fucking table.
>>46625188
>>46625194
I'm inclined to believe this, the 'loeffeln' reference is true anyway. Probably farmers used to using the 'ohrloeffel' against wolves and bandits used the 'Knebelspiess' the same way when they went to war, hence the confusion between the two.
>>46613495double club
>>46637318
Thick staff?
>>46637333
No, it's different. It's not as long as a staff, just two clubs smushed together. It looks like a peanut.
>>46616507
>quoit-headed sword
Literally what
>>46637597
That bladed disk on the end of the sword is known as a quoit. It's supposed to be thrown like a chakram, but here it's the head of a sword.
>>46616507
>mace with hidden sword
fuck
