Weapon/Armor House Rules

[Deadmanwalking]

I like having only 1 Enc difference between spears and great spears. I don't see a great spear being as encumbering as a great axe.

I do. A great spear is maybe not as bulky or awkward, but it's longer, and likely weighs a similar amount. It certainly weighs more and is bulkier than a longsword.

I think great axes are still better weapons, so I don't know if this makes great spears too good. But, you could drop another point of damage (make it damage 7) if you think the parry bonus is giving it too much.

I'd strongly argue that a default Great Spear is as good a weapon as a Great Axe by default. Trading a point of Damage for Parry at that amount of damage makes it possibly better. Making it lighter just adds to that. As for dropping damage more...that seems wrong thematically. Two-handed weapons do more damage than versatile ones, as a rule, and I think that's a good rule to stick to.

I see great spears as being defensively advantageous, so I like the idea of giving it some kind of special non-damage bonus. I don't feel the same about one handed spears, as they seem more of a purely offensive (thrusting) weapon. But the 2H great spear would have parrying and distance-keeping capabilities that should be reflected with some kind of game mechanic.

Oh, I'm on board with dropping damage for Parry on a Great Spear, I just feel it's a little too good combined with dropping Encumbrance. I'd keep the damage and parry, but raise Encumbrance back to 4.

[Bocephas]

Going back to the spear vs sword issue, perhaps the parry bonus is a way to give the sword a bump over the standard spear (since both seem destined to be damage 5 weapons). Full size swords (swords and long swords) should have enough reach to provide a defensive/parry advantage, unlike short swords ( a thrusting weapon historically), 1H spears, and axes (which seem purely offensive).

Any thoughts on giving swords and long swords a +1 parry bonus? These should be the most expensive weapons available, and the hardest to make/smith. I see them as being limited to wealthy cultures or nobles in less wealthy cultures. Because of this, I feel they should have some advantage over similarly sized weapons.

[Bocephas]

Thanks for helping brainstorm these issues, BTW.

[Deadmanwalking]

Going back to the spear vs sword issue, perhaps the parry bonus is a way to give the sword a bump over the standard spear (since both seem destined to be damage 5 weapons). Full size swords (swords and long swords) should have enough reach to provide a defensive/parry advantage, unlike short swords ( a thrusting weapon historically), 1H spears, and axes (which seem purely offensive).

Any thoughts on giving swords and long swords a +1 parry bonus? These should be the most expensive weapons available, and the hardest to make/smith. I see them as being limited to wealthy cultures or nobles in less wealthy cultures. Because of this, I feel they should have some advantage over similarly sized weapons.

Hmmm....knowing a friend who was in ARMA (and talked about it quite a bit upon occasion), I'm not sure swords are as defensive a weapon as you're thinking. Parrying, as such, just isn't a thing until you get swords ala the sterotypical rapier (not necessarily what was actually called a rapier, but what's called that in movies), since swords designed to deal with armor are too heavy to do that with and then attack in any reasonable time frame. You instead get attacks that are also designed to force the foe to not attack on particular angles and sudden changes in direction (assuming a double-edged blade). Stuff like that. They're, as I understand it, quicker than axes and more versatile than spears...but nothing that seems like it'd provide benefits to parry per se.

As for reach...swords big enough to theoretically provide it are primarily slashing weapons, and thus unlikely to provide any meaningfully. Certainly no more than axes, which are roughly the same length. And less than a one-handed spear in most cases.

Definitely a cool thing to add to polearm-style weapons,though.

Thanks for helping brainstorm these issues, BTW.

No problem, I've always enjoyed this kind of brainstorming.

Oh! On that note, a couple other things:

If doing the Increased Travel Fatigue from Armor idea, you should probably re-do how the Dwarves Redoutable works. Dropping that should definitely be a part of it, after all.

And if increasing how big a bonus shields provide, you should also upgrade two-handed weapons (including the two handed version of things like a Long-Hafted Axe), since it's a bigger sacrifice not having one. Unless you think two-handed weapons are unambiguously the better choice at the moment (which I'd be inclined not to agree with).

[Jussi Marttila]

Since dwarves are supposed to be four to five foot tall, I'd be ok with them using Great Axes. Maybe for the Dwarves, they use them more like pole arms, kinda like what one can do with a Dane Axe.

[Bocephas]

Yes, I can see that possibility. But it seems confusing to me that in the RAW, dwarves can't use long-hafted axes, but they can use great axes. To me, if long-hafted axes are too big, then great axes certainly are. That's why I am considering adding a "Dwarven Axe" with same characteristics as a long-hafted axe, and doing away with dwarves using great axes. They still have a really good purely 2H weapon with the mattock.

If I remember correctly, Gimli used his axe both 1H and 2H in the book, and it was small enough to hang from his belt. Sometimes he used a shield, and sometimes he didn't. That was my inspiration for the Dwarven Axe. I do not envision it being "long-hafted" like the Woodman weapon, but rather, made just right for Dwarves to use in one or both hands.

[Bocephas]

Deadman,

As for swords, my thinking was that a swordsman could use the flat of the blade to "bat" at the wooden shafts of spears and axes, (and thrusts from other swords for that matter), producing a "parry-like" defensive advantage not available to 1H spear users (who thrust) or axe users (who swing). I understand the idea of clanging blade against blade over and over again, like we see in the movies, is an inaccurate depiction.

In addition, the weight of a sword is in the hand, whereas the weight of an axe is in the head and the weight of a spear is balanced in the middle. This implies that the sword is easier to wield (faster if you will, like you said in your post). To me, this would translate into an advantage at keeping your opponent off-guard and at bay, more so than the spear and the axe. I would think that would translate into a parry bonus. But perhaps, a +1 bonus on attack roll would be a more accurate representation of the sword's "wieldiness" advantages over spear and axe.

[Deadmanwalking]

Deadman,

As for swords, my thinking was that a swordsman could use the flat of the blade to "bat" at the wooden shafts of spears and axes, (and thrusts from other swords for that matter), producing a "parry-like" defensive advantage not available to 1H spear users (who thrust) or axe users (who swing). I understand the idea of clanging blade against blade over and over again, like we see in the movies, is an inaccurate depiction.

Right...but that still runs into the issue that it takes too long to recover from such a 'bat' to make it viable part of standard tactics.

In addition, the weight of a sword is in the hand, whereas the weight of an axe is in the head and the weight of a spear is balanced in the middle. This implies that the sword is easier to wield (faster if you will, like you said in your post). To me, this would translate into an advantage at keeping your opponent off-guard and at bay, more so than the spear and the axe. I would think that would translate into a parry bonus. But perhaps, a +1 bonus on attack roll would be a more accurate representation of the sword's "wieldiness" advantages over spear and axe.

Here you have a point, realism-wise, but here's the thing:

In game terms, spears, axes, and swords cost the same amount and require exactly the same amount of training to wield effectively. That being the case, having one better than the other just leads to either everyone using the one that's better or the people who don't or can't feeling screwed.

So...from a rules perspective unless you're going to increase the xp cost to raise sword skills (not unrealistic, it's a hard weapon to learn as opposed to a spear) or make there be some meaningful cost to possessing a sword (ie: you need to invest one Reward in having a sword at all...again, not unrealistic, swords weren't cheap) making them mechanically superior isn't a good idea.

[Bocephas]

If doing the Increased Travel Fatigue from Armor idea, you should probably re-do how the Dwarves Redoutable works. Dropping that should definitely be a part of it, after all.

And if increasing how big a bonus shields provide, you should also upgrade two-handed weapons (including the two handed version of things like a Long-Hafted Axe), since it's a bigger sacrifice not having one. Unless you think two-handed weapons are unambiguously the better choice at the moment (which I'd be inclined not to agree with).

[/quote]

I don't see Redoutable needing modification in regard to Fatigue rating (lowering it by favored heart). My armor adjustments only lower Enc of armor by 1 point per D6 of armor and 2 points for a helm. With 5D6 armor and helm, that's only 7 points less than the RAW. The sample dwarf in rulebook would go from End 31/Fatigue 20 to End 31/Fatigue 14. That makes the fatigue level at about half his End for the strongest weariness resistant culture in the game. I don't think that's a bad thing.

But while we are at it, what are your thoughts on using a house rule (I can't recall where I saw it) subtracting Body from total Enc. If that rule were used, perhaps it would be best to leave the armor Enc values as they are in the RAW. The sample dwarf, with Body 6, would be in the same boat, with End 31/Fatigue 14. My problem is that the armor Enc values just look off to me when compared to the Enc values of weapons and shields. I don't like the way the numbers look on the page to begin with, and the Body fix won't change that. But I would prefer to just go with the most logical fix.

Back to Redoubtable, I am not sure the best way to incorporate it into reducing the extra load armor adds to travel gear (1, 2, or 3 points depending on level of mail). Maybe the simplest thing is to just say Redoubtable cancels 1 point of armor's travel load (3D armor = 0, 4D armor = 1, 5D armor = 2).

As for shields, I wanted to give them a little more bang for the buck. I feel shields have played such a key role in combat historically that their use should be the default, not a choice among equal options. If the extra +1 to parry makes using a shield a little better than using a 2H weapon, I think that's okay. Weapon and shield combos should be what you see people using most of the time, in my opinion. Also, by bumping bucklers up to +2, it leaves a +1 category open for those people wanting to dual wield with a dagger or short sword in their off-hand (without turning dual wielding into something over the top). My thought was letting dual wielders chose between +1 to parry or +1 to attack rolls (another idea I've seen floating around somewhere). This still keeps the buckler superior defensively.

[Bocephas]

Here you have a point, realism-wise, but here's the thing:

In game terms, spears, axes, and swords cost the same amount and require exactly the same amount of training to wield effectively. That being the case, having one better than the other just leads to either everyone using the one that's better or the people who don't or can't feeling screwed.

So...from a rules perspective unless you're going to increase the xp cost to raise sword skills (not unrealistic, it's a hard weapon to learn as opposed to a spear) or make there be some meaningful cost to possessing a sword (ie: you need to invest one Reward in having a sword at all...again, not unrealistic, swords weren't cheap) making them mechanically superior isn't a good idea.

Back to swords, I can see your point given the current game mechanic of weapons being given out freely to heroes, so long as they possess the skill. In that respect, and in skill points, they do "cost the same". I do not like the idea of increasing xp cost or requiring a reward.

But, there has to be some way to distinguish between a very expensive weapon (sword) and a very inexpensive one (spear). At some point, economics has to play a role in creating a logically consistent game world. If swords and spears are basically the same, then nobody would be taking the time to make swords.

I don't see a +1 to attack rolls being a huge advantage, given that you're rolling a Feat die and multiple D6s to hit. I don't see it being enough to change character concepts, but that's me.

Another idea is to treat the difference as more of a "status symbol" kind of thing. Perhaps carrying a sword or long sword could grant a +1 bonus to Awe checks (helping with Intimidate Foe tasks). I would still prefer to have some kind of full time (but small) combat advantage.