[Alex Yeoh]

what about the morning star? (spiked ball and chain) I hear people used maces most of the time, but did people use morning stars, and why would they choose to use a morning star? What was it's advantages and disadvantages?

Also - I need more info about Halberds.. a description similar to what Kenneth Enron provided about the Maces..

Thanks!

[R. Laine]

Since this hasn't been addressed yet...

[Alex Yeoh]

thank-you for your excellent reply. Now I have a big problem of how to represent this in the game.

Here is my problem: often times in Role-playing games, weapons are grossly simplified. They have a damage rating and perhaps have a bonus against armour, and MAYBE some reach advantage - and that's it. This means it is very hard to make weapons different enough in the game for people to want to use them. As I mentioned before, I have expanded the number of different attributes so that weapons can have a more unique feel.

The problem I have is how to express what you've just described to make the weapons balanced. I've just heard how wonderful the mace was, and I've just heard how wonderful the halberd is. If that is the case - how should I rate the mace and the halberd so that one would choose one over the other? Why then would someone want to use a sword? For what reasons would someone use an axe?

Perhaps the best way to handle this is for knowledgeable people to say something like this...
In a .......... situation, I would use an axe
In a ........... situation, I would use a long sword
In a ........... situation, I would use a mace
In a ............ situation, I would use a halberd
In a .............. situation, I would use a morning star

Thanks again for these insights!!!

[Alex Yeoh]

can you please describe what grappling maneuvers you are referring to? Would they be defensive or offensive? What is the process? Thank-you! All this information is so wonderful, it can make my game the most "realistic" combat system yet!

[Steve Fabert]

Here's a page describing the tactics for using the shorter version of a halberd-type weapon known as a poleaxe.
http://www.the-exiles.org/Article%20Le%20Jue%...Lesson.htm
The same principles apply to the use of weapons of similar length. Much longer polearms are a different proposition, and were used more in massed formations than in one-on-on combat.

[Bill Grandy]

Rabbe gave a nice succinct overview of the pole arm in general, and is dead on. I can't think of a single culture that didn't use staff weapons, and with good reason.

As for making rules for an RPG, my advice is not to get too specific. It's good to have a general idea of how/why a weapon was used, but the more detailed you get, the slower the game play is. The problem with weapons is that there are no absolutes in terms of categories of weapons. As Bjorn's link showed, there is a tremendous variety of maces, some with heavier hitting power but less manueverability, others small and quick. Just like swords.

And swords... how can we forget about the HUGE diversity of swords? Some are designed for cutting, some for thrusting, some for use against plate, some for use against maille, some for civilian fighting, some to reach a balance point between uses, etc. If you get too realistic, you'd have to take into account many, many factors as to what type of sword you were using.

So here's my VERY general chart on weapons, which tells a VERY incomplete story:

Halberd/polearm: Very useful at a ranged melee distance, cause opponent to have a disadvantage to hit you. If the opponent gets up close, the pole arm is still quite servicable, but looses some ability to manuever and do damage. However, the opponent needs to maintain the close distance, which is easier said than done. Polearms have a number of grappling options that aren't readily obvious to an untrained person(see the poleax section of the Talhoffer plates for this), and maybe you can have a skill for this where an untrained person suffers penalties when the opponent closes, and a trained person does not. Different polearms can be used in different ways (for instance, a bec de corbin is like a warhammer on a long staff, a halber is more axelike, etc.), and it's up to you how complex you want it.

Maces, warhammers: While three different weapons, for the sake of a game I'd put those in similar categories. Both are effective against plate armored opponents, as mentioned above... though don't give them TOO big an advantage. Beating up a guy in full plate is no easy task with standard hand to hand weapons. I have never come across any period texts explaining the use of a mace or warhammer, so I can only make conjecture, but they'd be good for impact damage. For instance, striking a man in a full helm may not damage the helmet at all, but might cause some damage through to the neck. Both the mace and warhammer would not be the best weapon to defend with, so defense would rely much more on avoidance.

Flails: Similar to maces, possibly with more impact power, but a little bit more awkward to use. Slightly harder to defend against, as parrying a flail will probaby result in having the chain wrap around to potentially hit you anyway, even if with less force, forcing the opponent to rely on voiding.

Axes: Single handed axes would be similar to maces and warhammers for a game, two handed axes more like short polearms. An axe is useful for armors like mail, as it can focus a lot of impact in a small area. Many axes have back spikes for making them useful against plate as well, and once again, it depends on how complex you want your game. Axes tend to be a little less manueverable than a sword. Like maces and warhammers, axes generally aren't very defensive, relying more on avoidance.

Two Handed swords/Longswords: Swords are very versatile weapons, being able to hande different types of defense with at least a moderate degree of success. Highly effective against unarmored opponents, moderately effective against a heavily armored opponent, though it depends on what type of sword we're talking about here. For the sake of game simplicity, you should probably assume we're talking about a design that balances the cut and thrust. A longsword has better reach than a mace or axe, but not a polearm. If the enemy closes in, the longsword is less effective, but can still be used from a halfswording position for close in strikes with the pommel and guard, or thrusts with the tip. Perhaps this can be a specialized skill in your game, whereas someone without this training suffers penalties if the opponent closes, and someone with training suffers no penalties. On that note, you might do something similar against plate armor: A person untrained in armored combat suffers huge penalties to hit a person in plate, as their sword keeps glancing off the armor, and a person with training still suffers penalties, but not as many.

Single hand swords: For the sake of a game, not much different than longswords other than being used with one hand. You probably should make the generalization that the reach is shorter (like a mace, axe, or warhammer), and that they are cut and thrust weapons. The same rules will probably apply against armor here.

There was supposedly some RPG by some ARMA guys recently that had a pretty realistic set of combat rules (Ring of Steel?), but I haven't played an RPG in years, so I'm afraid I'm not in touch enough to know anything about it. But in any case, hope this helps (and doesn't confuse! )

[Alex Yeoh]

Thank-you Bill! The information you provided was invaluable! Exactly what I needed. Thank-you also for the Riddle of Steel reference. I checked it out and I was very impressed. Combat seems pretty well simulated as I imagine it. I myself attempted to create a realistic combat system, but it was not executed as elegantly as the Riddle of Steel system. There are some holes that I perceive in the system though, and I queried their forum about that. I only reviewed their "quick system" and maybe the holes are filled in their comprehensive rule set.

[Jonathon Janusz]

. . . resisting urge to discuss RPG design and theory on sharp and pointies forum. . .

. . . resolve weakening seeing number of posts in thread. . .

em pleh. . .

[Bob Uhl]