forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I think it's also inappropriate for adversaries whose "armor" is natural. Dragons, trolls, etc.

But I've been thinking about the comments to the effect that "only bad guys use maces" and I think I agree with this. Not in a real-world sense, but it feels right for Tolkien's world. Given that, and the fact that adversary weapons (at least orc weapons) tend to be inferior to hero weapons, I could see giving mace and flails Damage: 5, Edge: G, Injury: 14. Why would adversaries use it? Because it's cheap to make and easy to train.

Glorelendil wrote:I think it's also inappropriate for adversaries whose "armor" is natural. Dragons, trolls, etc.

But I've been thinking about the comments to the effect that "only bad guys use maces" and I think I agree with this. Not in a real-world sense, but it feels right for Tolkien's world. Given that, and the fact that adversary weapons (at least orc weapons) tend to be inferior to hero weapons, I could see giving mace and flails Damage: 5, Edge: G, Injury: 14. Why would adversaries use it? Because it's cheap to make and easy to train.

Well, we actually already have several adversaries with bludgeons of one sort or another...most of which have high base damage, but not-so-good Edge and lowish Injury. Yet another reason I like that version for an official club.

Heck, look at Trolls, who have a club and a hammer. Though their version of a Club has Edge 10 and Injury 14.

But bad guys aren't the only ones to use bludgeons. There's also Gandalf's staff and the rather large club of Bullroarer Took, just off the top of my head. I definitely think we should have them available to PCs, and rather hope they're included in the Adventurer's Companion. But until then (or if they aren't in it) adding them seems reasonable.

Deadmanwalking wrote: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.

We could perhaps use several polearm options, especially with the increased chances of having to face horsemen with Rohan and Gondor being added.

I was speaking specifically of maces and flails, not all bludgeoning weapons and particularly not staves.

And clubs would have even worse stats.

Otaku-sempai wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote: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.

We could perhaps use several polearm options, especially with the increased chances of having to face horsemen with Rohan and Gondor being added.

Sure, but one presumes that's only one or two options, and they'll fall rather neatly under the spear group, which has its design space well worked out. My point was that we didn't need any new categories of weapons after that, not that we couldn't add a single weapon here or there.

Glorelendil wrote:I was speaking specifically of maces and flails, not all bludgeoning weapons and particularly not staves.

Well, if adding a new category, like bludgeons, I see no reason not to go all-out and add several of them.

Glorelendil wrote:And clubs would have even worse stats.

The version trolls have is actually better. That version's much larger than is typical, though.

I wouldn't put a Halberd or Glaive in the spear group.

And I wouldn't consider a staff to be equivalent to a two-handed mace. About the only thing they have in common is lack of a sharp edge. "Bludgeoning" is as broad of a category as "Edged" is.

Anyway, that's my final 83 cents on this topic.

Glorelendil wrote:I wouldn't put a Halberd or Glaive in the spear group.

Maybe not,but you could easily put them both in the axe group, since both are chopping implements (especially the halberd). Spears was more of an example than a definitive categorization.

Glorelendil wrote:And I wouldn't consider a staff to be equivalent to a two-handed mace. About the only thing they have in common is lack of a sharp edge. "Bludgeoning" is as broad of a category as "Edged" is.

Not per se, no. But I'd bet they have the same Called Shot. And likely the same Edge score. And those seem to be the prerequisites for a weapon group...

I would not give the mace a Damage of 6. I would leave it at 5. Then, I think what Glorendil said at the beginning is the way to go, give it a called shot that makes feel the weapon especial. If I am not mistaken, maces were designed historically to counteract the improvement in armours, plate ones specifically. May be give the mace the Piercing Called shot, like for spears and bows. With an injury of 16 it will be very nice.

Yepesnopes wrote:I would not give the mace a Damage of 6. I would leave it at 5. Then, I think what Glorendil said at the beginning is the way to go, give it a called shot that makes feel the weapon especial. If I am not mistaken, maces were designed historically to counteract the improvement in armours, plate ones specifically. May be give the mace the Piercing Called shot, like for spears and bows. With an injury of 16 it will be very nice.

I do not agree. Think about it: a Damage of 6 *is* a way to better defeat armored foes, just by the fact that you'll drop them more easily through Endurance loss, rather than by wounding them.

That's exactly what maces do: they don't find chinks in the armous, they crush them. They are designed to wear off opponents through the force and the momentum of the impact, even displacing bones, not to bypass the armor through its weaknesses.

Seen from the other way: is a mace a better weapon to wound an unarmored opponent? NO, it isn't. Swords and axes are way more lethal against unarmored opponents, thanks to cuts and blood loss. So if you give to your maces a higher Injury score, you're essentially making them on par with bladed weapons in terms of wounding effectiveness. Which is not the truth: maces give an edge against armours, but they are not any better against unarmored opponents.

But if you lower the Injury rating and increase the Damage, you're going in the right direction: maces are designed to bludgeon your opponents to death, not to make precise and efficient called shots to kill them with a single blow.

My take on the mace would be this:

Mace:
Damage: 6
Edge: G
Injury: 14
Encumbrance: 2
Group: Club / Crush Weapon
1h Weapon.

And by the way, these are also the stats of the Clubs used by the Trolls in the Loremaster's book

Michebugio wrote:I do not agree. Think about it: a Damage of 6 *is* a way to better defeat armored foes, just by the fact that you'll drop them more easily through Endurance loss, rather than by wounding them.

Good point.

Mechanically it makes sense. In reality I don't know. I will be equally scared of being hit by a mace and my skull crushed by the blow, than being slashed by a sword and having my tendons severed. But as I said, in the game, mechanically it has sense.