6th edition Min Str

[Lezentauw]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

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]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

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

[Lezentauw]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

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]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

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]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

what would the difference in performance of a double-bladed axe' date=' and a single bladed axe?[/quote']I thought the ability to to damage on the back-swing might be something

[Curufea]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

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]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

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]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

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]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

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

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

Actually' date=' double-bladed axes are significantly better than single-bladed ones. The back blade stabilises the forward one, which tends to wobble.[/quote']

 

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

[Lezentauw]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

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]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

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]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

This could be represented by building the axe as a Multipower' date=' or allowing the "flat of the blade" maneuver.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

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]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

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]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

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]

Re: 6th edition Min Str

 

AI have seen axes with small hammer heads on the back - they were steppe nomad designs' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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