6th edition Min Str

[ajackson]

In 4th edition, Str Min followed a very specific formula, so all weapons with the same Str Min were roughly equally potent. In 6th edition, this is completely gone -- a small axe (1d6+1, min str 8) is Just Plain Better than a shortsword (1d6, min str 10) (I'm somewhat mystified by how axes in 6e seem to be better than other similar weapons). If you're paying points for weapons, this isn't necessarily an issue (the shortsword is 9 points, the axe is 13), but otherwise it seems problematic. I was thinking of a few ways of solving this:

Rewrite the weapon tables so all weapons of the same min Str have about the same cost.
Import the 4e Min Str into 6e.
Eliminate Min Str and reduce base weapon damage.

The first two options are basically the same, except the first case is just a GM rewrite, the second case has formal rules (for reference, 4e Min Str = Active/2). The third option has the virtue that it makes FH consistent with Champions, but the problem that it's hard to apply to ranged weapons (particularly if it's not an HKA usable at range) and that it winds up being very easy to max out damage (if you want a dagger to do 1/2d6K with a normal user, you need it to be 1 pip HKA, and it gets maxed with Str 5).

Has anyone considered anything of the sort?

[Old Man]

Fantasy Hero STR Mins haven't made sense since 1st ed (and not even then, really). It's nice to see that my impassioned pleas that this be fixed, since before 5th FH, are still going unheeded. Were I to play FH today, I suppose I'd still have to drag out my modified 4th ed weapon tables. Pathetic.

Anyway to answer your question, you want option 2, but without the blind adherence to mathematics. Things like handedness and throwability aren't taken into account very well in the points, and Hero just isn't costed right for fantasy to begin with. So figure out what the math says the STR Min should be, then adjust each weapon a point or three, if necessary, for balance. This has the added benefit of getting some STR mins off the 10/13/15/18 breakpoints and creating at least a token motivation for players to buy an 'odd' value for STR.

[Lezentauw]

Well, I am sure I read somewhere else on these boards, that people like you do not agree with how axes now seem a better than swords. As has been stated though, if you don't like what was presented then change it. HERO is a toolkit after all, nothing says you have to follow it verbatim.

Here is what I like for weapons in my campaign. I actually want each weapon type to have an advantage over other weapons.
Axes do more damage due to a design that utilizes momentum.
Swords are better at parrying, and get an OCV bonus for parrying.
Spears are capable of setting for charge and have a better reach.
Flails are better at ignoring shields
Bashing weapons get a +1 Stun Multiplier.
Piercing weapons get some form of armor piercing


If you give each weapon their own unique advantage, IMO it can add flavor to the different weapon choices...

[Curufea]

Min Str should be based on weapon weight - and nothing else.

[Vulcan]

Min Str should be based on weapon weight - and nothing else.

Spoken like one who has never swung both a 2-lb rapier (where all the weight is literally in your palm) and a 2-lb hatchet (where all the weight is at the far end of the haft). Where the weight is located on the weapon makes at least as much difference as how much the weapon weighs.

[Nevenall]

Spoken like one who has never swung both a 2-lb rapier (where all the weight is literally in your palm) and a 2-lb hatchet (where all the weight is at the far end of the haft). Where the weight is located on the weapon makes at least as much difference as how much the weapon weighs.

Which is exactly why the GM should set the STR Mins to whatever he feels is the right blend of "realism" and game balance for a particular campaign.

[Escafarc]

I don't use the weapons chart for my FH campaign. I use Resource Points and each player builds his weapons to suit their character concept within campaign rules like: 1 handed weapons have a Max AP limit of 30. I might have to make some changes to the limits once I finish getting through 6E but it works for us.

[Old Man]

HERO is a toolkit after all, nothing says you have to follow it verbatim.

Nothing against you, but God I hate this attitude. It's a cop-out. I pay how much for 6th ed, and I still have to go fix the weapons list before I can use it? No one bothered to balance the MELEE WEAPON CHART in a game that is ABOUT MELEE COMBAT? Come on!



If you give each weapon their own unique advantage, IMO it can add flavor to the different weapon choices...

Absolutely, and it's been that way in FH for decades. But you still have to assign appropriate STR Mins for balance and realism.

[Curufea]

Spoken like one who has never swung both a 2-lb rapier (where all the weight is literally in your palm) and a 2-lb hatchet (where all the weight is at the far end of the haft). Where the weight is located on the weapon makes at least as much difference as how much the weapon weighs.

Spoken like someone who doesn't know the definition of weight :)
It's mass as affected by gravity.
Mind you, you could go into the specifics of torque if you wanted to. And air resistence for that matter.

My question is - why would you want to? How does it "improve the roleplaying experience"? Is it worth bothering with?

I've never swung a 2 pound anything, I've used swords and axes (single and double) up to 4 kilos.
How different things swing has little bearing on strength minimum. It's pedantic, pointless and a waste of time.

If it is harder to swing one end or the other - is equally pointless as you need to be able to swing both. So - Axe or Sword, minimum affects both. Or were you planning on never being able to parry with one or never being able to slash with the other?

[ajackson]

Actually, on thinking about it, you could probably do without Str mins entirely, and just say that a stronger person is assumed to use a bigger weapon, while not bothering to change weapon stats (i.e. it's always Xd6). To fix scaling, we add a perk: 'increased max DC', which allows a KA to be increased by 1 over its normal max DC; this sounds like a 1 point per level perk. Consider a structure like this:

Melee Weapons Multipower: 40 point reserves, all powers OAF

40 point slots (two-handed weapons); all cost 2 points to learn.

Any Melee Weapon: use 1H stats, at +1 DC.
Crossbow: 1.5d6 HKA, Ranged, 32 clips of 1 charge; +1 PSL vs Range.
Longbow: 1d6+1 HKA, Ranged, 32 charges; +2 PSL vs Range.
Long Spear: 1d6+1 HKA, 0 END; Reach +2m, 0 END; Martial Throw (stop thrust); +1 OCV with martial throw.
Staff: 4d6 HA, 0 END; +1 OCV, +1 DCV

30 point slots (major hand weapons); all cost 1 point

Axe: 1d6+1 HKA, 0 END
Axe, Thrown: 1d6+1 HKA, Range based on Str, up to 8 recoverable charges; Range based on Str on up to 20 Str.
Club: 4d6 HA, 0 END
Flail: 1d6 HKA, +1 Stun Mod, 0 END; +1 OCV vs Block, vs Shields, and with Trip.
Hammer/Mace: 1d6 HKA, +1 Stun Mod, 0 END
Hammer, Thrown: 1d6 HKA, +1 Stun Mod, Range based on Str, up to 8 recoverable charges; +1 OCV with Throw; Range based on Str on up to 20 Str.
Pick: 1d6 HKA, AP, 0 END
Sword: 1d6 HKA, 0 END; +1 OCV with all attacks, +1 OCV with Block, Disarm, Hipshot

10 point slots (Off-Hand Bonuses and Minor Weapons); all cost 1 point

Dagger: 1 DC killing, Range Based on Str, 0 END; +1 max DC.
Shield: +2 DCV against all attacks.
Stiletto: 1 DC killing, AP, 0 END.
Two-Handed Grip: +6 Str, 0 END cost; increased max DC +1.
Two-Weapon Style: naked advantage: autofire 2 on 30 active points, 0 END cost.


Given the low costs of slots, it's fair to simply use WF costs as slot costs, it will be close enough.

[Rapier]

Fantasy Hero STR Mins haven't made sense since 1st ed (and not even then, really). It's nice to see that my impassioned pleas that this be fixed, since before 5th FH, are still going unheeded. Were I to play FH today, I suppose I'd still have to drag out my modified 4th ed weapon tables. Pathetic.

Well, I've just got to belabour the obvious.

1) Last time I checked you weren't the Lead Line Developer.
2) Simply because you, personally, find something completely broken and/or nonsensical doesn't mean everyone else does.
3) Not making every single change to a game you don't own/control is not pathetic. In point of fact, I feel it safe to say that to bow down and make every single change every single person requests would, in fact, be pathetic. That's kind of why one guy is in charge.

[Lucius]

Well, I've just got to belabour the obvious.
2) Simply because you, personally, find something completely broken and/or nonsensical doesn't mean everyone else does.


As long as we're belaboring the obvious -

it's not just him.

If you'd like to try convincing people that the weapon charts as they stand are not "broken and/or nonsensical" you can try explaining why you think they make sense.

If you acknowledge that they're nonsensical and just don't care, feel free to say so. You can even try explaining why you don't care, if you care to.

Some people do care about nonsense, and don't think it's a good idea (at least in weapons charts.)

But taunting someone with what seems to me to amount to "who cares what you think, you can't do anything about it!" does not seem productve to me.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary is sure there's been another discussion like this recently....

[Lucius]

Here's a recent thread on just this topic.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/78314-(Equipment)-Axe-vs.-Sword?highlight=weapon

Here's what I had to say on the subject of weapon differentiation.


If you have a dagger, and your enemy has an axe, you are going to be inside the swing of that arc before you get close enough to stab.

In other words, no, having the shorter weapon doesn't mean you act before someone with a longer weapon - usually it would be the opposite.

Now, as you point out, it's not necessarily that simple. It's possible to get incredibly complicated and detailed with melee weapons, to the point where it's beyond fun for anyone not obsessed with the subject - like Dark Champions did with guns and ammunition.

Part of what's happening is that we are confounding the questions of "who acts first?" and "who acts faster?" In Hero, those properties are described by DEX and SPD.
Giving a weapon a SPD bonus sounds unbalancing, but perhaps Autofire makes sense for something like a dagger. At any rate, I don't think it makes sense to give a dagger a DEX bonus!

To sum up, yes, you're right that decisions must be made as to how much detail to add to the game. But the question is, if you're going to add details, what details do you want?
In my opinion, there are good details and bad details.

I see two reasons for adding detail and complexity - properties I'll call realism, and fun.

Realistic details are meant to simulate something, in this case melee combat.
Fun details are about creating diversity that is in balance, i.e. giving players interesting options without making some options non-viable or others overly efficient.

These two have more in common that is immediately obvious. Consider - every weapon that has seen any kind of extensive use in history, was used because people found it to be effective for their purposes at the time.I'm not saying culture never plays a role, but the fact that, for example, in every culture with the tech to make them, some form or other of the sword has been the weapon of choice for professional warriors should tell us something about how useful it is. There is something wrong with a system that makes a sword less effective in combat than an ax.

Which is not to say that there should be no reason to choose the axe. Historically a Viking with an axe was one who could not afford a sword, so I've read, but I am sure some of them chose the axe because, besides killing, it was useful for breaking down doors or opening locked chests.

Someone's already pointed out that pole arms are very effective in a given circumstance - when in a formation of infantry on a battlefied, for mass combat

Now, in some cases what justifies a weapon's existance is something that may never matter to an adventurer - if all fighting is in small groups and formation tactics don't matter, maybe there's no reason to carry a halberd. But if any differentiation is made among weapons, that differentiation should make sense - there should always be a sensible answer to the question "why would anyone ever use that?" even if the answer is "it's cheap" or "it's simpler to learn to use."

Lucius Alexander

Why would anyone take a palindromedary?

[Old Man]

My question is - why would you want to? How does it "improve the roleplaying experience"? Is it worth bothering with?

Well, because giving all weapons of a given weight the same stats is boring. Mostly. As Lezentauw pointed out, it adds to the game when different weapon types have different game effects.

Also I see where you're coming from with the mass thing--I have a physics degree after all--but I think you are discounting torque and rotational inertia too much. It makes a huge difference whether the 2-kilo mass is centered a handswidth away from the hilt, or out at the end of a three foot haft.

[dmjalund]

Suggestion 1: option of taking DCV penalties to gain DEX for combat order (I'm trying to get inside his range and hit first, but I'm leaving myself vulnerable)

[Alibear]

As a quick and dirty rule I'll make a few different sizes of weapons. Tiny, small, medium, large and extra large.


Str min 5 for tiny weapons. (daggers hatchets etc) all will do 2dc, can be thrown

Str min 8 for small weapons and will do 3dc

Str min 11 for medium 4dc

Str min 13 for 1.5 handers 5dc

Str min 17 for 6dc 2handers

Then I'll differentiate between them with different abilities An axe will do an extra dc, as sword extra ocv, a flail can use flail maneuver, a spear set v charge and is a long weapon, a pick/ stilleto -1 dc but is Ap etc.

I'll have a look at this ion detail later as I'm getting ready to restart our campaign in 6e.

[Old Man]

Well, I've just got to belabour the obvious.

1) Last time I checked you weren't the Lead Line Developer.
2) Simply because you, personally, find something completely broken and/or nonsensical doesn't mean everyone else does.
3) Not making every single change to a game you don't own/control is not pathetic. In point of fact, I feel it safe to say that to bow down and make every single change every single person requests would, in fact, be pathetic. That's kind of why one guy is in charge.

Okay... before I go on, if I seem to be coming off the handle a bit, it's because FH is far and away my favorite RPG, even moreso than Champions. I've been playing it for decades. So I care.

Now I'm sure the printed STR Min chart is fine for some; certainly whoever the "lead line developer" is thought so. However, in FH--any heroic-level combat RPG, really--weapons play a huge role. That seems pretty obvious. I guarantee that the weapons chart in any fantasy RPG is one of the ones that is going to get worn out fastest, along with the armor and encumbrance table, skills, and powers. It is one of the pages that you absolutely want to photocopy for reference in-game.

Fantasy Hero is particularly notable for allowing its players to play just about any kind of character they want, within reason, and still have them be effective in the game. That's why it's incredibly annoying for the weapon stats to be so out of whack. If I want to play a rapier-wielding swashbuckler, I do not want to have to do so knowing that rapiers suck. I could forgive one or two points of STR, that's statistical noise--but a full DC? In a game where 8 DC is a lot? Maybe my swashbuckler should use hand axes instead. +1 DC, and I can throw a hand axe. That's a no-brainer.

I really feel like I'm not asking for the world here. I don't care what the specific STR Min values are, as long as they're vaguely realistic and sort of in line with each other. But they're not. Is the hand axe thing a typo or did someone just jot down a bunch of numbers without even thinking about balance? Either way, it's pretty sloppy, given how important weapon combat is in fantasy. And why would people pay that kind of money for a sloppy book?

[Alibear]

Rep Da Old man. I feel exactly the same.

[mayapuppies]

I'd say that this is certainly something to put forth when Steve does his "What do you want to see" thread for the 6E Fantasy Hero. Considering how close GenCon is, that should be soon.

[Ragnarok]

Okay... before I go on, if I seem to be coming off the handle a bit, it's because FH is far and away my favorite RPG, even moreso than Champions. I've been playing it for decades. So I care.

Now I'm sure the printed STR Min chart is fine for some; certainly whoever the "lead line developer" is thought so. However, in FH--any heroic-level combat RPG, really--weapons play a huge role. That seems pretty obvious. I guarantee that the weapons chart in any fantasy RPG is one of the ones that is going to get worn out fastest, along with the armor and encumbrance table, skills, and powers. It is one of the pages that you absolutely want to photocopy for reference in-game.

Fantasy Hero is particularly notable for allowing its players to play just about any kind of character they want, within reason, and still have them be effective in the game. That's why it's incredibly annoying for the weapon stats to be so out of whack. If I want to play a rapier-wielding swashbuckler, I do not want to have to do so knowing that rapiers suck. I could forgive one or two points of STR, that's statistical noise--but a full DC? In a game where 8 DC is a lot? Maybe my swashbuckler should use hand axes instead. +1 DC, and I can throw a hand axe. That's a no-brainer.

I really feel like I'm not asking for the world here. I don't care what the specific STR Min values are, as long as they're vaguely realistic and sort of in line with each other. But they're not. Is the hand axe thing a typo or did someone just jot down a bunch of numbers without even thinking about balance? Either way, it's pretty sloppy, given how important weapon combat is in fantasy. And why would people pay that kind of money for a sloppy book?

My sentiments exactly.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Speaking as a sometimes historian of early modern war, I will say this in defence of axes: you can't miss the references to them in campaign histories of the seventeenth and eighteenth century. "The carpenters of the army"* lead the van, join storming parties, and generals are always squabbling over who gets to use them.
Sometimes, very rarely, they even use them in fights. Because what axes are good for is (sit down, put down the coffee, I'm going to rock your world with my revelations here) turning trees into lumber.
Okay, a good long axe is also good for scattering a line of spearmen/fusiliers with bayonets/pikemen, but by and large, an axe is designed to maximise striking power at the expense of handling because trees tend to freeze up in close combat. It strikes me that a -1 OCV would fix the tables up for tomahawks and battleaxes. (the problem with the big ones is that they were usually used like quarterstaffs in duels.) But I'd really want to see the tables extended, because the best reason to carry a tomahawk as a sidearm is for climbing and disassembling abatis: which use, oddly enough, isn't well-reflected in my version of the hand-to-hand weapon table in 6e2.
In short, axes are very useful tools for soldiers to have. Swords are better weapons and spears even better. Maybe the tables in Fantasy Hero will reflect this.


*"Pioneers," but the nomenclature is a bit complicated.

[Rapier]

Okay... before I go on, if I seem to be coming off the handle a bit, it's because FH is far and away my favorite RPG, even moreso than Champions. I've been playing it for decades. So I care.

Now I'm sure the printed STR Min chart is fine for some; certainly whoever the "lead line developer" is thought so. However, in FH--any heroic-level combat RPG, really--weapons play a huge role. That seems pretty obvious. I guarantee that the weapons chart in any fantasy RPG is one of the ones that is going to get worn out fastest, along with the armor and encumbrance table, skills, and powers. It is one of the pages that you absolutely want to photocopy for reference in-game.

Fantasy Hero is particularly notable for allowing its players to play just about any kind of character they want, within reason, and still have them be effective in the game. That's why it's incredibly annoying for the weapon stats to be so out of whack. If I want to play a rapier-wielding swashbuckler, I do not want to have to do so knowing that rapiers suck. I could forgive one or two points of STR, that's statistical noise--but a full DC? In a game where 8 DC is a lot? Maybe my swashbuckler should use hand axes instead. +1 DC, and I can throw a hand axe. That's a no-brainer.

I really feel like I'm not asking for the world here. I don't care what the specific STR Min values are, as long as they're vaguely realistic and sort of in line with each other. But they're not. Is the hand axe thing a typo or did someone just jot down a bunch of numbers without even thinking about balance? Either way, it's pretty sloppy, given how important weapon combat is in fantasy. And why would people pay that kind of money for a sloppy book?

I see where you are coming from and I think you are greatly missing a point.

Analgously, your point is: why would anyone wield a 9mm semi-automatic pistol when they could have a rotary assault cannon, a minigun or grenade launcher. Those weapons do more damage, so are naturally superior. Weapons ARE very important in a heroic game. But they are not the beginning and end of the story. You cannot simply argue in some vacuum that a nuclear missile is better than a longbow. Each has it's place in the scheme of things.

A great deal of the difference is good character design. Does a rapier do less damage than a great-sword? Yes. However, a character who uses a rapier should (in all likelihood) be designed as if he is going to use a rapier. He might attack more frequently, will have more control over his weapon so will be more accurate and wielding a lighter weapon will have a great deal of focus on defending (including blocks, dodges and parries). If you are churning out identical warriors and making the only difference the weapon they are holding, then you are doing them a disservice. This is what DnD did to us for all those years. Everyone always picked the highest damage weapon they could get their hands on. Think how odd it would be for a giant standing up the hill from a dungeon, "gee, Maury, that makes the 14th bastard-sword wielding warrior of the day, I guess I owe you 5 gp."

A rapier was never meant to go toe-to-toe against a large heavy weapon, like an axe. It's a light weapon and the character should be designed so that he can use that weapon effectively. A character who is appropriately designed for the weapon they wield is a formidable opponent. Weapon stats should not be the determining factor on the balance of an entire character. A character is more than the sum of the weapon they wield.

[ajackson]

I see where you are coming from and I think you are greatly missing a point.

Analgously, your point is: why would anyone wield a 9mm semi-automatic pistol when they could have a rotary assault cannon, a minigun or grenade launcher. Those weapons do more damage, so are naturally superior.
Those weapons also have inherent disadvantages, which are why they aren't used in place of the pistol. This is not true for fantasy weapons. Now, simply forcing people to pay points for all weapons does a decent job of making the weapon distinctions irrelevant, but if you don't want people paying points for weapons, there are no inherent disadvantages of a Min Strength 10 axe over a Min Strength 10 sword that would cause you to use the sword; the axe is just a better weapon.

[Curufea]

I should point out that you're assuming later periods of history - the Saxons often used axes, as did the Vikings. The Saxons also did not have swords as you assume them to be, they had saxes - which are more like what you think of as meat cleavers, crossed with machettes.
Axes are easier to construct than swords, require less metal which is difficult to mine and process, and are more easily repaired. Not only that - but they are superior to swords in pulling. I don't know how you would go about pulling someone's shield away from them (so your buddy with a spear can kill him) with a sword.

[ajackson]

I should point out that you're assuming later periods of history - the Saxons often used axes, as did the Vikings.
It seems likely in both cases that they used axes because they had axes conveniently available. The primary realistic benefit of axes is that they're cheap and have non-combat uses, whereas swords are expensive and are a poor choice for any non-combat use. All of which is entirely irrelevant to Fantasy Hero (it could be used in Gritty Realistic Medieval Hero, if anyone ever played that).

[torchwolf]

Regarding swords vs axes - there has been extensive discussion on the peculiarities of various weapons in recent threads, so I'm not getting into that, except to note a few things:

In the Hero System Martial Arts rules, slower attacks generally have a lower OCV.
Melee weapons with greater reach/larger attack surface generally have a higher OCV (+1 or so), excepting some polearms.
Axes are unbalanced, and thrown objects have a -2 modifier for this property.
Unbalanced weapons are generally not part of any Martial Art or have any specific technique approaching Fencing MA or Melee Combat MA developed for them.
WF: Axes would probably be quicker to learn than WF: Swords (even though they're costed the same).

Taken together, perhaps unbalanced melee weapons should be considered to have a lower OCV than balanced ones.
Possibly, another way to solve the issue with reach, would be to treat say, swords as the default, and add a relative weapon speed/reach modification as a positive or negative Lightning Reflexes, and use the optional "Hurry" combat maneuver more extensively.

In either case, rapiers and other light, lower-damage weapons become more efficient than axes when used properly to take advantage of their greater potential maneuverability (MA: Fencing), precisely because they are light weapons.

Applying different properties per weapon type has already been suggested, and expanding that concept might be more rewarding than relying on adjusting damage values and STR minimums up and down; I'd go so far as to suggest that DCs and STR Mins are one of the least important part of defining weapons - AP, Semi-AP, +STUN, etc. would do more in individualizing weapons in game statistics. DCs and STR Min could reasonable be dependent on weapon mass to a certain extent (subject to the notion of weapon balance in case of STR Mins, perhaps +2 STR Min for being unbalanced? That would probably apply to greatswords etc. as well, in that case).

Again, there are many here who have extensive insight into Creative Anachronisms and similar experience - these were just some thoughts, and YMMV. :)

[Curufea]

(it could be used in Gritty Realistic Medieval Hero, if anyone ever played that).

Or low magic fantasy, or early medieval fantasy or Harn, of which more people play than any version of Fantasy Hero you care to name added together. Sadly, Harn is more popular than Fantasy Hero, so you may need to get off your high horse there. As it is pretty much entirely relevant to Fantasy Hero which supposedly proposes to actually support people who don't want to play D&D, but possibly other types of fantasy game as well.

Certainly more people play High Fantasy and "superheroes in chainmail" more than low fantasy - but they are playing D&D which is amply suited for all your mixing of technologies and any amount of non-realistic fantasy elements you care to add just because their cool.

[ajackson]

Sadly, Harn is more popular than Fantasy Hero, so you may need to get off your high horse there.
No, because the number of people playing HarnWorld with Fantasy Hero is probably negligible. I'm not saying that there isn't a role for gritty fantasy, but FH is generally a poor match for it.

[Curufea]

No, because the number of people playing HarnWorld with Fantasy Hero is probably negligible. I'm not saying that there isn't a role for gritty fantasy, but FH is generally a poor match for it.

Very true. The majority of FH players, are trying to play D&D with it. For two reasons - they come from a D&D background, or they can't imagine a fantasy game in any setting other than a D&D one. Thus invalidating the need for generic rules of any kind, when what they really want is modifcations to D&D that lets them put in their own customisations more easily.

[Alibear]

I don't play D&D hero. FH is perfect for 'gritty' if we could add an infection mechanic after a wound we'd be there. Too gritty even for me perhaps to have characters limbs sawed off after taking serious wounds.

[Lucius]

Those weapons also have inherent disadvantages, which are why they aren't used in place of the pistol. This is not true for fantasy weapons.


Actually, it is true, or should be true.

Rapier's question is "why would anyone wield a 9mm semi-automatic pistol when they could have a rotary assualt cannon etc." and you're pointing out that there are in fact valid answers to that question. If we have to, we can spell them out.

Part of the question of dealing with weapons in a game may be "how much needs to be spelled out?"

For example:

On a more sensible weapons table than the one we have in current RAW, a sword of a given "weight class" (for want of a better term) would be a superior weapon to a comparable ax, as a weapon.
"Common sense" might tell us that the axe could sometimes be better than the sword as a tool. Not to mention being cheaper and easier to make (a fact I don't consider as being that obvious, although it would show up on a weapons table that includes prices.) In my opinion, common sense is not so common that it shouldn't sometimes be helped along by commentary in the text.

We could simplify things tremendously, of course, by saying "a weapon is a weapon" and eliminating distinctions between, say, axes and swords. Or go to the other extreme and generate pages of details about minor differences in weapons. I favor a more balanced approach, with real differences defined among broad classes of weapons. (Failing that, I'd fall back on the simpler approach and file differences under "special effects.")

But only if it's done right. Done right, there is always an answer to the question "why would someone use this weapon?"

If the differences make some weapons or groups so clearly inferior or superior that there is no sensible answer to that question, it was done wrong.

If they fly in the face of the realities of the weapons involved, again, it was done wrong.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary wants seige weapons as a weapons element for a martial art....

[teh bunneh]

Very true. The majority of FH players, are trying to play D&D with it. For two reasons - they come from a D&D background, or they can't imagine a fantasy game in any setting other than a D&D one. Thus invalidating the need for generic rules of any kind, when what they really want is modifcations to D&D that lets them put in their own customisations more easily.

So, your two options are to play gritty low fantasy, or to play D&D? :confused:

[ajackson]

Very true. The majority of FH players, are trying to play D&D with it. For two reasons - they come from a D&D background, or they can't imagine a fantasy game in any setting other than a D&D one.
Um, no. The majority of FH players are trying to play heroic fantasy. In any case, the reason FH is a poor match for grim realism is because it's fundamentally an effects-based system.

[mayapuppies]

So, your two options are to play gritty low fantasy, or to play D&D? :confused:
Yes, yes! Go with the gritty low-fantasy...come to the darkside! I even have a wonderful setting to play in... :sneaky:


Um, no. The majority of FH players are trying to play heroic fantasy. In any case, the reason FH is a poor match for grim realism is because it's fundamentally an effects-based system.
I dunno, I think I've done pretty good with "realism" in the Kamarathin setting, of course I'm completely biased in my assessment of that. :thumbup:

[Lucius]

a character who uses a rapier should (in all likelihood) be designed as if he is going to use a rapier. He might attack more frequently, will have more control over his weapon so will be more accurate and wielding a lighter weapon will have a great deal of focus on defending (including blocks, dodges and parries).

I'm going to address what I think Rapier is saying here, but coming at it in a roundabout way.

I have said that for every weapon that is defined in a given campaign, there should be a reason why someone would use that weapon. And for weapons that actually exist in history - which does, I think, include most fantasy melee and missile weapons - the reason they exist is that someone found them useful. Otherwise, they would NOT exist.

In some cases, the reason might be something of little interest to most adventuring player characters. For example, many pole arms are specialized for mass formation tactics and make excellent weapons for a soldier with a score of comrades when all have been trained in the same tactics, facing a similarly sized group on a battlefield.

In other cases, the reason for choosing one weapon over another might be ease of use. Sure, the crossbow bolt carried a more powerful punch than a longbow's arrow, but a big reason it became popular despite a low rate of fire is that it took minimal training to become competent, whereas it was said to take years to train an acceptable longbowman.

And in arguing that a sword should be a more effective weapon than an axe, I made the point that in every culture capable of producing them, the sword (in one variation or another) has been the weapon of choice for professional warriors - that is, for those who devoted time to its use and mastery.

Possibly one way to make meaningful distinctions among weapons is to say that only some weapons are eligible for use with Martial Arts, including Ranged Martial Arts.

Lucius Alexander

Telling the disappointed palindromedary that no, it can't take a martial art usable with seige weapons.

[Old Man]

Um, no. The majority of FH players are trying to play heroic fantasy. In any case, the reason FH is a poor match for grim realism is because it's fundamentally an effects-based system.

I dunno, I've played low fantasy games in FH that turned out just fine. It's an interesting change of pace, try it sometime. I imagine it'd be even better today if you have the Ultimate Skill book.

[Old Man]

Possibly one way to make meaningful distinctions among weapons is to say that only some weapons are eligible for use with Martial Arts, including Ranged Martial Arts.

Another would be to jack up the skill costs for certain weapons relative to others, but this solution runs into the FH granularity issue.

[Ragnarok]

Um, no. The majority of FH players are trying to play heroic fantasy. In any case, the reason FH is a poor match for grim realism is because it's fundamentally an effects-based system.

Actually, the low fantasy games I've played with the HERO system have all been good. I see nothing inherent in the HERO system that fundamentally cripples the low fantasy play style.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Ah, this topic.

Its been done to death on these message boards. I agree that since the introduction of the 5th edition, the weapons writeups have seemed to become arbitrary. STR Minimum has always been a sticking point in the system, even from the beginning. Its simply a difficult thing to pin down stemming from the exponential nature of STR, which limits the range in which STR Minimums can reasonably fall.

I do agree with the original poster that swords should not be inferior to axes, which according to the current weapons charts, they quite obviously are. How I've fixed that for my games is gone back to the 4th edition versions where pretty much all sword-type weapons get a +1 OCV in comparison to other melee weapons to represent their versatility and supreme balance. What I did was that I designed swords first...they are the "base" weapon that my weapon charts are designed around. Then after getting my baseline I adjusted every other melee weapon according to how they perform in comparison with a sword. Most melee weapons are not as well balanced as a sword weapon, so in general swords are the only weapons that have an inherent +1 OCV bonus built in to their stats. (The quarterstaff is an exception as it too has +1 OCV). Axes, maces, hammers, flails etc all have a majority of their weight distributed at the tip of the weapon, making them more difficult to wield in general. Also in general because of the difference in weight distribution, most of those weapons have a slightly higher STR minimum than a sword weapon of equivalent DC value. However that extra mass gives those weapons other advantages over blade weapons: Axes gain +1 DC in comparison to an equivalent blade weapon. Maces gain +1 Stun multiplier, Hammers gain Penetrating. Picks gain Armor Piercing. Flails gain Indirect. Hafted weapons quite obviously gain reach bonus and the ability to be set vs charge.

In my weapon charts, the Short Sword has a +1 OCV, does 1D6K damage and has a STR minimum of 7. The Hand Axe (the axe equivalent to a short sword) has a +0 OCV, does 1D6+1K and has a STR minimum of 9. Which weapon your character would choose should depend completely on their fighting style. Someone who prefers finesse would probably choose the short sword for the lesser STR Min and +1 OCV. Someone who prefers damage would probably choose the Hand Axe because of the higher base DC and the potential for doing 2 1/2D6K damage vs a maximum of only 2D6K. The smart warrior chooses both. Use the short sword to parry and use the hand axe to split his opponents skull!

[ajackson]

So, I made an attempt at porting 4e Min Str to 6e, with some tweaks to eliminate the less coherent features of 4e behavior.

Minimum Strength: -1/2 or -1

Due to weight or other factors, using this power requires you to have a certain amount of strength; normally half the active point cost of the power, counting only those effects that affect the power's damage classes. Strength applied to a power's minimum Strength does not cost End and cannot also be applied to the power's damage (assuming it would normally do so); thus, a Str 10 character using a 1d6+1 HKA (Min Str 10) would spend 2 END for the HKA, none for Str, and do 1d6+1. The limitation is -1 on powers that normally add Strength (HKA, HA), -1/2 on powers that do not (in a multipower, the GM may allow the full -1 limitation on the reserve, and then require non-Strength powers to find an extra -1/2 limit to make up the difference. A good way of doing this is to take Charges plus Costs Endurance on the power. Note that OCV bonuses match the type of the power they're linked to, DCV bonuses must take a limitation).

If you use multiple powers with Strength Minima at once, add those minima together. In addition, if you are using two hands (because of a two-handed weapon, or weapons in two hands), reduce the total minimum strength by 5. It is possible to use weapons slightly in excess of your Strength; take an OCV penalty equal to half the missing Strength, minimum -1.

If a power is only partially limited, only the portion of the power with the limitation is counted into Str Min. Thus, if you want a shortsword that does 1DC more than a normal shortsword, simply buy an extra 5 active points without the Strength Min limitation.

A typical historical weapons multipower might look like this (this is for a 15 Str warrior; a lower Str warrior would use lower DC weapons)

14 Weapons Multipower: Multipower, 41 Active, OAF, Min Strength. All slots cost 1 point.

Two-Handed Slots: 41 active points; Min Str 15 (due to 2H).
Flail: 1.5d6 HKA, +1 Stun Mod, +2 OCV vs Blocks and Shields, +1m reach (38 active, Min Str 14)
Great-Axe: 2.5d6 HKA, +1m reach
Great-Club: 7d6 HA, +1 OCV, +1m reach
Great-Spear: 2d6+1 HKA, +3m reach (38 active, Min Str 14)
Great-Sword: 2d6+1 HKA, +1 OCV, +1m reach
Maul: 2d6 HKA, +1 Stun Mod, +1m reach (38 active, Min Str 14)
Military Pick: 2d6-1 HKA, AP, +1m reach (38 active, Min Str 14)
Quarterstaff: 6d6 HA, +1 OCV, +1 DCV vs Melee, +1m reach
Crossbow: 2d6+1 RKA, +1 OCV (40 active); 32 clips of 1 recoverable charge, costs Endurance (-1/2)
Longbow: 1.5d6 RKA, +2 level vs range penalties; 4 clips of 16 charges (+1/4), costs endurance (-1/2). Note that it isn't actually 4 clips; rather, it's assumed that arrows can be recovered an average of 4 times.
Primary Weapon Slots: 31 active points; Min Str 15
Bastard Sword: 1.5d6 HKA, +1 OCV, +1m reach
Battle-Axe: 2d6 HKA, +1m reach
Club: 5d6 HA, +1 OCV, +1m reach
Javelin: 1d6+1 HKA, Range Based on Strength, +1 OCV
Hand Pick: 1d6+1 HKA, AP
Mace: 1.5d6 HKA, +1 Stun Mod
Morningstar: 1d6+1 HKA, +1 Stun Mod, +2 OCV vs Blocks and Shields
Throwing Axe: 1.5d6 HKA, Range Based on Strength
Off-Hand Slots: 10 active points; +0 to Min Str (changes 1H to 2H)
Parrying Dagger: +2 DCV, Only Vs Melee Attacks
Shield: +2 DCV, Costs Endurance
Two-Weapon Style: add Autofire (2 shots) to any primary weapon.

[Old Man]

See, now that already makes a lot more sense than what's published. The multipower is irritating and mostly just gets in the way, but the weapons themselves are more or less balanced against each other, which is what matters to me most. I could see dropping the active points on the primary weapons to get them down closer to 10 STR where "average" people can use them, but overall it's a solid table.

[Lezentauw]

In other cases, the reason for choosing one weapon over another might be ease of use. Sure, the crossbow bolt carried a more powerful punch than a longbow's arrow, but a big reason it became popular despite a low rate of fire is that it took minimal training to become competent, whereas it was said to take years to train an acceptable longbowman.


I agree with the above, and perhaps to reflect that you need to add in OCV or Range skill levels to reflect that. Another factor, that you can do, has to do with the Set maneuver. Aiming with a drawn bow should require full end until the arrow is shot. A crossbow, only the other hand only spends full end to load it. That would be a pretty big advantage, if you have make use of the Set maneuver between the two...


And in arguing that a sword should be a more effective weapon than an axe, I made the point that in every culture capable of producing them, the sword (in one variation or another) has been the weapon of choice for professional warriors - that is, for those who devoted time to its use and mastery.

Possibly one way to make meaningful distinctions among weapons is to say that only some weapons are eligible for use with Martial Arts, including Ranged Martial Arts.

I agree with handling swords this way. By itself, the sword is no better than an ax, perhaps even a little inferior in certain ways (damage). But, once you get trained properly, aka MAs, the sword starts to become superior...

Besides if you give swords a +1 ocv, and the Axes +1 dc, IMO that makes them balanced...

[Lucius]

Another would be to jack up the skill costs for certain weapons relative to others, but this solution runs into the FH granularity issue.

That also occurred to me. One might make the sword a superior weapon, but it costs 2 pts to become familiar with it - twice the investment. But then you have to raise the cost of Common Melee Weapon Group to 3. And there may be other ripple effects I'm not seeing yet.

Lucius Alexander

Common Palindromedary Group

[AnotherSkip]

Axes are unbalanced, and thrown objects have a -2 modifier for this property.
Unbalanced weapons are generally not part of any Martial Art or have any specific technique approaching Fencing MA or Melee Combat MA developed for them. :)

Uh there is a reason why People have a Knife Axe Spear throwing competition and not a sword in the bunch (or maces ) you wanna call an AXE unbalanced?!?!?!?

Yeah, no. Swords and (many other weapons) get the unbalanced rules (at best if the Gm allows you to hurl iron)

The problem is Swords have +2 Str Min and are missing other benefits. (yes this ia Creative Anachronism opinion)

Really each weapon class should reflect some leve of historic usage that is at least documentable rather than "whatever Goes"

Similarly Some GM's may not want Guns to be Killing Classes reserving that for truly unique killing powers in his game.

[ajackson]

Uh there is a reason why People have a Knife Axe Spear throwing competition and not a sword in the bunch (or maces ) you wanna call an AXE unbalanced?!?!?!?
As a melee weapon it's unbalanced. As a throwing weapon it's probably no worse than a throwing knife -- both weapons are thrown rotating and if they don't hit at the right point in their rotation period are fairly worthless (all of which is to say that darts and spears should have an OCV advantage over knives and axes, though probably a damage disadvantage).

[Hugh Neilson]

Part of the problem is that, as gamers, we want the variety of an extensive weapon list. If we want the weapons tob be realistic, the fact is that they weren't all in wide use simultaneously. The Romans ruled the world with iron worked short swords because no one had anything better. When better metalworking techniques came along, better swords were developed and the short sword faded away. But we want that weapon list with a half dozen different sword types. And we want them to all see use in play, so we can't have one be clearly superior, or a few be clearly inferior, despite the reality that, for many weapons, one replaced another because it was superior.

[Escafarc]

Part of the problem is that, as gamers, we want the variety of an extensive weapon list. If we want the weapons tob be realistic, the fact is that they weren't all in wide use simultaneously. The Romans ruled the world with iron worked short swords because no one had anything better. When better metalworking techniques came along, better swords were developed and the short sword faded away. But we want that weapon list with a half dozen different sword types. And we want them to all see use in play, so we can't have one be clearly superior, or a few be clearly inferior, despite the reality that, for many weapons, one replaced another because it was superior.

You bring up something else to concider. It wasn't just the weapons that made the Romans better but the Tactics they used with them. Most RPG battles are more like barroom brawls than battlefield battles. So in a "realistic" game, many of the advantages of the weapon may/should be less effective.

[Vulcan]

You bring up something else to concider. It wasn't just the weapons that made the Romans better but the Tactics they used with them. Most RPG battles are more like barroom brawls than battlefield battles. So in a "realistic" game, many of the advantages of the weapon may/should be less effective.

An excellent point. The Celts did very well with a slightly longer, slashing style sword well-suited to the wide-open brawling style of battles they preferred. The Gladius was well suited to the close-quarter shield-wall tactics that the Romans preferred.

Roman sucess in battle was not due to the specifics of their sword, but due to imposing their tactics on the other side...

(And the primary weapon for both was actually the spear and/or javelin, not the sword.)

[ajackson]

Most RPG battles are more like barroom brawls than battlefield battles.
No, in my experience RPG battles are prone to having decent tactics (when you have considerable time to think about your actions, and a clear map view, it's not hard to have tactics that would be very impressive to accomplish in the field), it's just that they're tactics for a small, elite squad. If you took 4-6 Roman legionnaires against 4-6 barbarian warriors, the barbarians would probably win. If you took 100 Roman legionnaires against 100 barbarian warriors, the legionnaires would probably win.

[torchwolf]

Uh there is a reason why People have a Knife Axe Spear throwing competition and not a sword in the bunch (or maces ) you wanna call an AXE unbalanced?!?!?!?

As a melee weapon it's unbalanced. As a throwing weapon it's probably no worse than a throwing knife -- both weapons are thrown rotating and if they don't hit at the right point in their rotation period are fairly worthless (all of which is to say that darts and spears should have an OCV advantage over knives and axes, though probably a damage disadvantage).
Yeah, I meant unbalanced as a melee weapon, sorry if that was unclear.
On throwing weapons: I agree that OCV modifiers (and possibly even STR Mins) should probably be different for most melee weapons, when used HTH and when thrown.

[Lezentauw]

Ok, I have working on my FH campaign again. While I don't mind the weapon chart in 6E, I don't totally agree with it either. So here is what I have come up for a weapon chart. Right now I only have axes & swords done, but let me know what you think.



HTH Weapon Chart
Weapon OCV DMG Stun STR Wgt Size B/D Notes
Axes
Hand Axe +0 1d6 0 8 0.6 S 3/4 Thrown, #
Small Axe +0 1d6+1 0 10 0.9 M 4/4
War Axe +0 1.5d6 0 13 1.2 M 5/4
Francisca Axe +0 1.5d6 0 13 1.2 M 5/4 Thrown, #
Battle Axe +0 2d6 0 14 1.6 M 6/4 1 .5H
Great Axe +0 2d6+1 0 18 2.1 M 8/4 2H
*Axe Spike +0 1d6 0 +1 +.3 M +0/0 AP, Back spike, #

Weapon OCV DMG Stun STR Wgt Size B/D Notes
Swords & Knives
Knife +1 .5d6 0 6 0.4 S 2/5 Thrown, #
Stilleto +1 .5d6 0 6 0.7 S 3/5 AP, #
Dagger +1 1d6-1 0 8 0.8 S 3/5 Thrown, #
Rapier +1 1d6 0 10 1.0 M 5/5 AP, #
Short Sword +1 1d6 0 10 1.1 M 5/5 SM
Side Sword +1 1d6+1 0 13 1.2 M 5/5 SM
Long Sword +1 1.5d6 0 14 1.7 M 6/5 1.5H, SM
Great Sword +1 2d6 0 18 3.5 M 7/5 2H, SM

# = +1DC per full 6.25 STR above STR Min
AP = Armor Piercing, reduces rDEF by 1 per base DC of weapon.
1.5H = +2 to STR min if used 1-Handed.
2H = +3 to STR min if used 1-Handed, for giant races.
Sm = Can use new Sword Pierce maneuver with this weapon.
Back Spike = A spike that can be added to the back of a small or war axe.



The Sword Pierce Maneuver is in concept right now. What the intention is to allow the user to sacrifice some of the weapons base DC for AP. The amount will be predefined by the ability, but this will allow for certain weapons such as sword to show their versatility.

[dmjalund]

what would the difference in performance of a double-bladed axe, and a single bladed axe?

[Lezentauw]

Other than looking cool and increasing the weight? Not much really...

I am looking for a semblence of realism, while at the same time leaning more torwards a form of balance and ease of use. You will notice that certain weapons are not on the list for swords, but you can just use the stasts of one of those listed easy enough. No real need to list every weapon, when a simple chart will do just as well. As an example, a scimitar is nothing more than a side sword. So you use the side sword stats, change the name, and move on...

[Old Man]

I love it. More thought has gone into your weapon chart than into any official Hero weapon chart in the past fifteen years.

I always assumed the +1 OCV for swords had to do with their ability to both cut and stab, but I'm interested to see how your sword pierce maneuver turns out.

'Stiletto' one l two ts.

[dmjalund]

what would the difference in performance of a double-bladed axe, and a single bladed axe?I thought the ability to to damage on the back-swing might be something

[Curufea]

Other than looking cool and increasing the weight? Not much really...

I've got to rep you for that.

Although I'm tempted to reply "It gives the same advantages as adding horns to a helmet"

[Curufea]

I thought the ability to to damage on the back-swing might be something

No, no it isn't.

If you interfere with your backswing, you'll never, ever build up enough swing room to do any damage whatsoever.

If your entire battle strategy for using an axe in combat is to swing in circles - you're dead at the first spear. Hell, the first, non-circle swinging axe or non-axe wielder will dice your arms.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Other than looking cool and increasing the weight? Not much really...

I am looking for a semblence of realism, while at the same time leaning more torwards a form of balance and ease of use. You will notice that certain weapons are not on the list for swords, but you can just use the stasts of one of those listed easy enough. No real need to list every weapon, when a simple chart will do just as well. As an example, a scimitar is nothing more than a side sword. So you use the side sword stats, change the name, and move on...

Actually, double-bladed axes are significantly better than single-bladed ones. The back blade stabilises the forward one, which tends to wobble. Try an old-fashioned logger's double-bitted axe. You'll be amazed at the difference.*
And if you split your forehead on the back swing with the freakishly dangerous thing, just remember that my name is...er, Old Man.
Yeah, that's it. Old Man.

*There's a late-90s article in Technology and Culture on the difference. (Roland Jagger? I'm being lazy about looking this up.) Although the premiere journal for the history of technology has a history of uneven publications, this one was pretty solid.

[Alibear]

I always assumed that an axe was double bladed so it could last twice as long in the forest before you had to stop and sharpen it :D

[IndianaJoe3]

Actually, double-bladed axes are significantly better than single-bladed ones. The back blade stabilises the forward one, which tends to wobble.

I wonder if you could get the same effect from a counterweight on the back of a single-bladed axe?

[Lezentauw]

I love it. More thought has gone into your weapon chart than into any official Hero weapon chart in the past fifteen years.

I always assumed the +1 OCV for swords had to do with their ability to both cut and stab, but I'm interested to see how your sword pierce maneuver turns out..

Correct the sword can be used multiple ways and to me it is one of the better weapons to parry with. So the +1 OCV helps with all of that.

I was reading that at the end of the Middle Ages, the armor was starting to make slashing weapons useless. So swords incorporated sharpend tips so they could stab weak points in the armor, and puncture the armor better. I am not sure how true this actually is, but it sounds good enough for me. It is the reason I am including the new maneuver, which will allow for swords to be better at handling high armored foes than an ax.


I wonder if you could get the same effect from a counterweight on the back of a single-bladed axe?

I may take this into affect, and modify the weights of the larger axes. They will either have a double blade, or can add a small hammer head to the back for the counter balance. I think the smaller axes are fine though without it...

[IndianaJoe3]

I wonder if you could get the same effect from a counterweight on the back of a single-bladed axe?



I may take this into affect, and modify the weights of the larger axes. They will either have a double blade, or can add a small hammer head to the back for the counter balance. I think the smaller axes are fine though without it...

This could be represented by building the axe as a Multipower, or allowing the "flat of the blade" maneuver.

[Rapier]

This could be represented by building the axe as a Multipower, or allowing the "flat of the blade" maneuver.

For a non-superheroic campaign, I would tend to lean towards the 'Flat of the Blade.' Equipment lists can already get rather cluttered without doubling the size of the display for each weapon.

[Old Man]

I was reading that at the end of the Middle Ages, the armor was starting to make slashing weapons useless. So swords incorporated sharpend tips so they could stab weak points in the armor, and puncture the armor better. I am not sure how true this actually is, but it sounds good enough for me.

That's more or less correct. I've handled "swords" that were basically edgeless, rigid icepicks. They didn't stay that way for long, since armor itself was quickly obsoleted by firearms, and sabers and rapiers came back into fashion.

[Bismark]

At the risk of repeating myself, having posted a few bits and pieces on related topics in the past, here are a couple of linkys for you:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html

http://www.thearma.org/Youth/rapieroutline.htm

The rapier article is illuminating - I always thought that a lot of Late Mediaeval "rapiers" I saw pictures of were in fact just 'Knightly thrusting swords' with a rapier-style hilt, and that some of the other 'rapiers' were in fact estocs or toccos- a different kind of weapon altogether (and actually designed to take out heavily-armoured opponents - unlike the rapier).

The videos on that site are great fun as well.

I have seen axes with small hammer heads on the back - they were steppe nomad designs, on the whole, fairly light, and designed so that the back of the axe could indeed be used as a hammer for making/repairing stuff rather than as a weapon.

There is a related item that probably started off as a tool which evolved into a weapon - this was an adze with a hammer head on the back call a sagaris - popular with the Iranian-speaking nomads of the Late Biblical, Classical, Hellenistic and Roman eras.

[Markdoc]

Correct the sword can be used multiple ways and to me it is one of the better weapons to parry with. So the +1 OCV helps with all of that.

I was reading that at the end of the Middle Ages, the armor was starting to make slashing weapons useless. So swords incorporated sharpend tips so they could stab weak points in the armor, and puncture the armor better. I am not sure how true this actually is, but it sounds good enough for me....

It's not true. It is true that by the end of the Middle ages, improved armour was starting to make slashing weapons useless, but swords had been pointed since long before the roman empire arose (old roman sword training maxim: "The edge wounds, the point kills"). Most swords have always been both cut and thrust weapons, with the emphasis usually on one aspect or the other and a few, like the 11th century knight's broadsword a nearly perfect balance of the two. The problem was that as armour improved there were fewer and fewer places you could put a point to kill - and you just can't thrust a sword point through good armour. Just physics. It can't be done (at least not by a human).

Thus, the battle weapon of the heavily armoured man at arms became not the sword, but the axe, mace, hammer or pick or - more and more - the pike and halbard. The sword became a side weapon and - probably more importantly - a symbol of gentility. It's why - paradoxically - as armour became better and better, the european knight's sword started getting lighter and apparently more useless on the battefield. The paradox is resolved when you realise that swords were becoming at least as important as a symbol than a weapon. It also explains why you see this change in France, Italy, Spain, Germany and England - but not in the celtic or slavic fringes where armour was typically lighter and heavy swords remained a practical battlefield tool for centuries. It's also why even as armour declined, western european swordplay remained built around thrusting-focused weapons: formalised training had arisen from the earlier era when thrusting was considered more important and once formalised, stayed that way.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

AI have seen axes with small hammer heads on the back - they were steppe nomad designs, on the whole, fairly light, and designed so that the back of the axe could indeed be used as a hammer for making/repairing stuff rather than as a weapon.

This design - single handers with an axe-head and a hammer on the back (not a working hammer but a war hammer) were very popular in Europe as well - especially Germany and Scandinvia. They look light, but having held a couple of real ones, they are surprisingly heavy, as the haft is usually metal and solid.

cheers, Mark