New Weapon: Mace

[Deadmanwalking]

And a Dwarf can have a Body of 7; 10 for Favoured. With that in mind, I'd suggest that Body doesn't really directly equate to height, there's a bit more to it than just that;

Oh, agreed. But in general, I'd assume that a Dwarf with high body is more likely to be on the large, muscular, size...for a Dwarf. Or at least can be if their player wants them to be.

I'd prefer to use traits like Tall and Small to describe such elements when they are important to the narrative. So, the way I'd handle Merry and Pippin growing due to drinking the Ent Draught is by either (a) applying a new trait not by increasing their Body; something like "Tall for Hobbit Folk" or if you want to apply more mechanical options then (b) some kind of Virtue.

This seems a reasonable way to handle it.

Or even just "Tall"?

Or this.

As for the proposed mace, it doesn't sit right with me that it does more base damage than a "comparable" sword or axe. I understand that it has the Edge of an axe but the Injury of a sword, so it does need something to compensate, but it doesn't feel logical (to me) that it does more damage than all other 1H weapons. Maybe in real life, against some types of armor, that would be true, but this game doesn't really model/simulate that. (Remind me again what the hit modifier is for a Guisarme-Voulge against AC 2...)

Well, it specifically does more Endurance damage only, while having worse Edge/Injury...which seems appropriate to me for something that's a bit more useful against the heavy armor available but not actually as likely to kill someone outright. As well as reflective of a weapon that's just likely to be a bit heftier than many others.

Is it perfectly representative? No. But then, neither are the differences between spears, swords, and axes.

That said, I'm not sure how you fit a new weapon category into the existing design space without just duplicating the stats of an existing weapon type, or creating rules that don't have any precedent.

Well, increasing damage works pretty well, actually. And changing damage isn't new design space, I mean look at the Mattock, which (as you note) does less damage than other two handed weapons. Indeed, that seems the only new design space readily available...and makes enough sense for bludgeoning weapons to be a compelling idea for them.

I'd probably just give it identical stats to a sword, but make a nifty cultural reward that reduces Protection against mail armors.

Eh. So far no weapons duplicate each other's stats, I think keeping it that way is probably a good call.

Also...why Mattock for a family group? Not a remotely similar weapon, and the Mattock actually does less damage compared to other two-handed weapons.

Here, I agree with you completely.

[Glorelendil]

Well, unless we keep giving weapons increasingly extreme values...or stop adding weapons...we will run out of design space and have weapons with identical stats, so we may as well get used to it.

Another option that would fit the current pattern would be Edge 8, Injury 12/14(2H). But I might drop Injury by another whole step, because otherwise you'll get a LOT of Pierces, and a Fell/Keen version would be a serious mook killer.

Not actually proposing that, just saying it's an option.

But the other variable to play with, that wouldn't break precedent, is Called Shot effect. I could see giving various bludgeoning weapons damage/edge/injury that duplicate existing categories, but with unique Called Shot effects.

[Deadmanwalking]

Well, unless we keep giving weapons increasingly extreme values...or stop adding weapons...we will run out of design space and have weapons with identical stats, so we may as well get used to it.

I dunno about that. Once we get some bludgeoning weapons, I can't think of any reason we need more weapons at all. So we seem to need one new bit of design space and then we're good.

Another option that would fit the current pattern would be Edge 8, Injury 12/14(2H). But I might drop Injury by another whole step, because otherwise you'll get a LOT of Pierces, and a Fell/Keen version would be a serious mook killer.

Yeah, that'd work...but as you say, it'd be somewhat problematic as a mook killer. Additionally, I don't think it's thematically appropriate at all for bludgeoning weapons.

Not actually proposing that, just saying it's an option.

Understood.

But the other variable to play with, that wouldn't break precedent, is Called Shot effect. I could see giving various bludgeoning weapons damage/edge/injury that duplicate existing categories, but with unique Called Shot effects.

Unique Called Shots are possible, but I at least feel they aren't sufficient. IMO, the pattern of no two melee weapons having the same exact stats is good and should be stuck to.

[Glorelendil]

IMO, the pattern of no two melee weapons having the same exact stats is good and should be stuck to.

Why? Does it actually affect playstyle, tactics, etc.? There may be a tiny difference in terms of which Qualities are optimal (Keen before Fell, etc.) but in my experience most people make those choices for flavor/preference, not because of statistical analysis. I've also rarely/never seen weapon stats affect tactical decisions, with the exception of Called Shot effects. I've never seen another player say, "Well, I only have Edge 10, not 9, so I guess I'll do something different."

If TOR enabled the golf-bag approach to weapons, I could see switching weapons depending on circumstances. But...thank GOD...it does not.

So if you just want the weapons to be mechanically different so that it feels like more than just fluff, Called Shot effect should provide that.

One of my favorite rule systems, Dungeon World, fixes damage by class. I.e., Paladins do 1d10 regardless of weapon type. Definitely lets you choose your weapon entirely for flavor, without worrying about statistical variation.

[Deadmanwalking]

Why? Does it actually affect playstyle, tactics, etc.? There may be a tiny difference in terms of which Qualities are optimal (Keen before Fell, etc.) but in my experience most people make those choices for flavor/preference, not because of statistical analysis. I've also rarely/never seen weapon stats affect tactical decisions, with the exception of Called Shot effects. I've never seen another player say, "Well, I only have Edge 10, not 9, so I guess I'll do something different."

In my experience, you're right. Statistical differences are not sufficient to actually decide what weapons people use. However, they are sufficient to make the weapons feel different in play, and in a fun and evocative way. For example, spears feel like a gamble, since they're so likely to Pierce, but Protection rolls often succeed, while axes, in contrast, feel more reliable, since you're not expecting to Pierce or gambling on it occurring...but when you get lucky and they do Pierce, death is basically inevitable and everyone knows it.

Again, none of that matters all too much statistically (heck, some of it isn't even true statistically...axes are probably a bigger gamble than spears)...but it really helps the different weapons to actually feel different. Nobody ever forgets what weapons the others are wielding, because their mechanics make them distinctive. That's pretty cool, especially given the degree of balance between weapons, and seems worth preserving.

If TOR enabled the golf-bag approach to weapons, I could see switching weapons depending on circumstances. But...thank GOD...it does not.

Well, yeah. But that doesn't entirely remove the significance of weapon choice and what it does and means for the players.

So if you just want the weapons to be mechanically different so that it feels like more than just fluff, Called Shot effect should provide that.

Eh...not sufficiently. That makes the weapon different under very specific circumstances, but it doesn't make the weapon actually feel different in play turn by turn.

One of my favorite rule systems, Dungeon World, fixes damage by class. I.e., Paladins do 1d10 regardless of weapon type. Definitely lets you choose your weapon entirely for flavor, without worrying about statistical variation.

Which is cool, but clearly not precisely the approach taken by TOR. And would absolutely, IME, lead to people actually forgetting what weapons the other PCs were using.

[Glorelendil]

Huh. I guess we've had very different TOR experiences, then. I remember what my co-heroes are using because of their descriptions/narrations and my visualizations, not because of their stats. The only exception occurs when fighting Great Size opponents, in which case I find myself thinking about statistics, which honestly I'd rather not.

What's your experience been? What weapons are folks in your game(s) using that make it fun for you to think about the mechanical differences? Any illustrative anecdotes?

[Terisonen]

Anyway, Mace will not be a weapon of choice for some reason:

-1 You wan't find a old Mace of Westernesse nor from Numenor;

-2 It's an effective weapon but she's not cool like a beautiful, engraved, slender sword;

-3 Elves don't wander with that kind of stuff: it's crude and dirty;

-4 Have you ever heard of Naugrim Smith Of Old making Mace?

-5 You won't pass hour of Sharpening your Mace at the night camp while telling old story;

-6 Only really wicked being use Mace (Morgoth, Witch King)

[Deadmanwalking]

Huh. I guess we've had very different TOR experiences, then. I remember what my co-heroes are using because of their descriptions/narrations and my visualizations, not because of their stats.

Oh, me too. But in my experience, doing so is not universal among all players. I've had players in games I was running say things like 'Wait, you use an axe?' in tones of surprise on more than one occasion. It doesn't always hapen, but it's been known to. I mean, as a GM, you describe new people the PCs meet, but PCs usually only describe their own characters once at the beginning of the game, afterwards only mentioning changes in appearance.

If players regularly describe exactly what they're doing in combat, their weapons might come up in that, but not necessarily even then, and many players, again in my experience, don't describe what their character does in combat beyond 'I stab the guy who just hit me.' or similarly brief bits.

And these behaviors are not necessarily from poor roleplayers, either. It's actually often quite good roleplayers, who simply aren't that focused on the combat aspect of the game. Or at least not on vivid descriptions of such.

The only exception occurs when fighting Great Size opponents, in which case I find myself thinking about statistics, which honestly I'd rather not.

I must admit to thinking about it a bit more than that in terms of combat tactics. Knowing who's best suited between our archers (a Woodman with a Shepherd's Great Bow and thus a lot of damage and an absurdly accurate but low damage Hobbit) to take out wounded foes is relevant, for example, as is whether someone should stop fighting for a minute and Intimidate Foes or Rally Comrades. That sort of thing.

That's less of an issue with weapon choice, but it does sorta inform how I think about combat.

What's your experience been? What weapons are folks in your game(s) using that make it fun for you to think about the mechanical differences? Any illustrative anecdotes?

No anecdotes, really. It's not like it's a big thing, just a running theme in the background of my head, and probably other people's, when I think about why stuff happens. Y'know, stuff like "Oh, right spears pierce all the damn time" running through my head when the spear-elf Pierces yet again. Which is also, sorta, what makes it fun to think about...the weapons feel different, and it feels different to fight a spear-man than an axe-man. That's cool, and I think worth preserving for new weapons.

As for what weapons, the party's melee fighters are all exclusively axe or spear wielders (my Beorning, a Dwarf, and an Elf), which probably does help make it more distinct since those are the weapons with the biggest difference between them...a fact only accentuated by the spear being a greatspear, while both axes are one-handed. But when we had a greataxe in the group...there was a large and clear distinction between it and the great spear, so probably not too much. We do also have archers (as noted above) who feel quite different as well, but that's mostly because they're ranged weapons.

[Majestic]

Well, it specifically does more Endurance damage only, while having worse Edge/Injury...which seems appropriate to me for something that's a bit more useful against the heavy armor available but not actually as likely to kill someone outright. As well as reflective of a weapon that's just likely to be a bit heftier than many others.

To me this is a bit strange. I think of Endurance loss as not only physical damage (like the loss of Hit Points), but the bruises, cuts, and minor injuries of battle. The mace doing a lot of that makes sense, but if you're truly trying to model "something that's a bit more useful against the heavy armor available" wouldn't a higher Injury be the way to go, rather than just higher Endurance damage?

And if it's only against heavy armor you think it'd be effective, you could go with a really strong/high Injury rating and include the text that "for Armour over 2D the target rolls 1D less", or something to that effect.

[Deadmanwalking]

To me this is a bit strange. I think of Endurance loss as not only physical damage (like the loss of Hit Points), but the bruises, cuts, and minor injuries of battle. The mace doing a lot of that makes sense, but if you're truly trying to model "something that's a bit more useful against the heavy armor available" wouldn't a higher Injury be the way to go, rather than just higher Endurance damage?

That's one way around it, but just doing more Endurance damage also works to circumvent armor entirely. Which is the logic I'm using there.

And if it's only against heavy armor you think it'd be effective, you could go with a really strong/high Injury rating and include the text that "for Armour over 2D the target rolls 1D less", or something to that effect.

That seems overly complicated and, perhaps more importantly, way too powerful for a baseline weapon.