Weapon damage

[Atgxtg]

Actually the SR benefit is oay for attack, but the spear sort of get's screwed defensively in RQ.

One thing that I liked about the Usagi Yojimbo RPG was that spears no only had reach (Similar to D&D 3+, but with people having differernt move rates), but that they had a rebound critical/special. Tat meant you could use a spear to cunterattack (basically attack vs. an attack instead of parry) and keep the counterattack to use in the round against another attacker (assuming you made the rolls. If you sucked of the other guy did good, you just got hit and wound in up close with a long range weapon).

It made spear users a bit tricky to handle. You could try to rush in and hope to beat the spearpoint aside for the attack, or slowing close in and try to trap the guy somewhere where he couldn't backpedal and be able to keep the spear in play. It made the pretty useful for fending off animals, too.

[Nightshade]

That's the problem with a lot of weapons when you start getting into the guts of their mechanics; you can start doing more and more special cases if you don't watch it.

[badcat]

Another thing you might want to check out Stormbringer for. There are several devices built into the system to make weapon choices more interesting.

[soltakss]

Several reasons spring to mind.

Some PCs don't have the STR/DEX to use certain weapons, so they use similar ones instead. One of my players has a PC with a low DEX who picked up Self Bow not Composite Bow.

Some weapons are a lot more expensive than others. Some are heavier than others. Where money is short or ENC is important, these factors come into play.

Some weapons are cultural. Lunars use Scimitars, Lunar enemies don't (in Glorantha). Vikings use Axes/Swords/Spears, Roman Legionaries don't use Axes, British Officers in the Zulu Wars wouldn't use a Spear and Shield.

Some weapons have religious merit or connotation and may be favoured or not favoured by members of certain cults. So, Humakti use Swords, Babeester Gori use Axes, Thuggees use Garrottes and so on.

Some weapons just aren't available. I've never been of the opinion that all weapons should be available everywhere. So, a phased plasma rifle might be in the rulebook, but that doesn't mean you should be able to pick one up anywhere. Similarly, composite bows should only really be available in areas with contact with those cultures that use composite bows.

Some weapons are banned. Most Gloranthan cities ban the carrying of long weapons. Imagine walking through modern day London with a sub-machine gun (OK, Los Angeles shouldn't be a problem, though ). If certain weapons were banned, it might slow down their takeup.

Some weapons are more suitable for certain situations. A thief, for example, might carry a knife rather than a dagger as it is less conspicuous, doesn't make him look like a killer and can be used to cut bread.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

First off, the sword is typically a better weapon overall than most other melee weapons. It is fairly strong, and highly verstile, as you can slash & stab with it. Many other weapons of the era were either not as study, slower, or not a versitile. Swords were the weapons for the rich. So in a way they should be better.

A couple of things there. Swords really aren't for just the rich. Many ancient and medieval societys had access to swords for their common soldiers, as well as the rich. (The poor farmers may not have had the "extra" resources to spend on a nice sword, but the poor soldier certainly would have been able to manage it.) I'd agree that a good slashing sword probably is a superior weapon to most other weapons in a standard 1-on-1 RPG style combat. I wouldn't agree that it's superior outside of that. It's main advantages are flexibiliity and balance.

One huge advantage of a sword, especially from an RPG perspective, is that you can sheath it. A spear, mace, axe, etc. really isn't designed to be "holstered", so are more effort to transport and are also much harder to appear nonthreatening with.

Also, weapon reach isn't a big issue in RQ, but is a big factor in real combat. The spear has been and continues to be (thanks to they bayonet) a very useful weapon in part because it has a nice reach advantage over most swords, aces, and maces.

It has reach and is quicker weapon to wield, if we're talking one handed spears. In many ways, a competent warrior with armor, shield, and spear has an advantage over a similarly skilled warrior with armor, shield, and sword. (I'm ignoring larger spears as they require formational tactics to be effective. They're too unwieldy to be used in small skirmish combat.) RQ does deal with reach. That's what weapon SRs represent. It just doesn't do it beyond a certain level of granularity (like anything else).

Oh, and I disagree with Nighshade about the spear. The Egyptians, the Greeks, medieval militia, Swiss Pikemen, bayonet. The weapon has been one of the most used weapons throughout history.

Correct. For most of history, the spear is the dominant battlefield weapon, especially in the hands of highly trained professional soldiers. There's a reason for this and it has nothing to do with the spear being cheap or easier to wield (which it isn't) than other weapons.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Militia didn't use them because they were a good weapon; they used them because they were easy to use and cheap. Same is really true of the use of bayonet on weapons (the fact they'd do double duty as a dagger didn't hurt). Most of the others were using them during periods when the other weapon choices were, frankly, often substandard, and before breakout into specialized troops. I already acknowledged the benefit of the Pike, but notice its a specialized weapon in the end; it was designed primarily to deal with cavalry, which used lances.

You're all over the place here on how effective a spear is...

Obviously, militias use what is cheap and available. (Spears are no easier to use than a sword. However, they are inherently a defensive weapon, so are a natural for nonprofessionals.) Similarly, the bayonet is pretty much just the logical extension of what can physically be done with a rifle, and is the natural extension of pike and musket formations: combining the functions initially.

However, the part about spears being chosen because of a lack of other weapons is incorrect. Spears, of one sort or another, have dominated battlefields from the Bronze Age to the advent of the repeating firearm, and for good reason. Even you note that pikes (a spear) are developed (partially at least) to defend against the lance (a spear): so the two dominant weapons of the battlefield are both spears until the point when firearms become powerful enough to marginalize all melee weapons.

The spear is a good formation weapon, but once formations break up, its reach doesn't really make up for its limitations in other ways.

Once formations break up, one side is running away and it doesn't matter what weapon they have. The other side is chasing them down on cavalry (armed with spears ) to cut them down. There is no good weapon once a formation breaks in ancient or medieval warfare.

Its just got the virtue its cheap and easy to learn to use; it doesn't have the control issues you have to some degree with maces and axes, and even worse with flails, nor the cost associated with decent swords.

The spear has a lot of advantages beyond those. I find it interesting, that all the other weapons you mention have fairly limited eras they existed on the battlefield, and yet the spear was there at the beginning and end. Even the sword doesn't fair nearly as well historically.

(Though as an aside, an awful lot of early swords were largely either-or in terms of thrust versus slash; its hard to find one that was really good for both functions, and some were almost useless for one of the two purposes (usually thrusting)).

True. The concept of a sword being used for both is something that postdates swords actually being used to any large extent on the battlefield. Actual swords are designed to do one or the other and are not balanced properly to do both. I don't allow the option in my RQ games. Big swords are slashing weapons, strictly, and short swords are thrusting weapons...though they can be used either way.

[TRose]

one of the problems with the BRP combat system is lack of reach for weapons. A man with a dagger and another with a pike can fight just fine even though in reality The man with the dagger would have to get around the point of the pike first and if he manage that then the man with the pike would have a hard time sticking him with the pointy end if the dagger man got with in range.
Might add one thing that has in the past determine what weapon I or my players use is what we could start with. I had one character that used a sling as his main ranged weapon because by the time I could afford a longbow I had gotten pretty good with it. I mean if I had 65% with sling changing to a longbow which starts at 5% did not make sense to me. Same would apply to a character that started with an ax or mace, switching weapons and losing 20% skill is not worth it at times.

[drohem]

As I understood the concept of Strike Ranks in RQ, it was a representation of weapon reach and wieldability.

Since the game mechanics for combat in almost all RPGs is just an abstract representation rather than a strict simulation, the rules are simple by necessity so that the game doesn't bog down.

As a matter of personal taste, you could always create your own combat House Rules for any RPG system.

The beauty of BRP is that you could add layers of complexity, and the system still stays robust.

If you want a good combat simuation system, look to GURPS. If you want a simple combat system, look to D&D.

I think that RQ3 combat mechanics are fairly detailed as written, and do a good job of represtation the basics of combat simuation.

[badcat]

The BRP system where reach rules are present is Stormbringer 5. Parry and Dodge are interchangable within the round, and if fighting a spear-wielding opponent you first dodge to close. The spearman then must drop the spear, or dodge to open up the distance again. This is also one of the factors that make use of the +100% skills in the game...

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by RMS

You're all over the place here on how effective a spear is...

Not from where I sit.

Obviously, militias use what is cheap and available. (Spears are no easier to use than a sword. However, they are inherently a defensive weapon, so are a natural for nonprofessionals.) Similarly, the bayonet is pretty much just the

This disagrees with the statements I've heard on the matter from everyone who's ever trained with both swords and spears (usually in a martial arts context) so you'll excuse me if I take it dubiously.

However, the part about spears being chosen because of a lack of other weapons is incorrect. Spears, of one sort or another, have dominated

I didn't say that was the only reason, but its often a big reason. An effective spear doesn't even really require metal, something you can't say about a sword or really an axe.

battlefields from the Bronze Age to the advent of the repeating firearm, and for good reason. Even you note that pikes (a spear) are developed (partially at least) to defend against the lance (a spear): so the two dominant weapons of the battlefield are both spears until the point when firearms become powerful enough to marginalize all melee weapons.

Lances are the only really effective horseback weapon until you get horse pistols, and pikes were formation weapons; I'd never deny the benefit of spears as a formation weapon, but that says little about their benefit as an individual weapon.

Once formations break up, one side is running away and it doesn't matter what weapon they have. The other side is chasing them down on cavalry

Formation fighting has hardly been the only form of warfare, especially the tight formations necessary for effective shield walls and spear use. In fact, its effectively disfunctional in certain environments.

The spear has a lot of advantages beyond those. I find it interesting, that all the other weapons you mention have fairly limited eras they existed on the battlefield, and yet the spear was there at the beginning and end. Even the sword doesn't fair nearly as well historically.

You don't think this happens to have anything to do with the fact that the sword requires effective metallurgy and a spear doesn't? Maces and axes have limited life because in the end, they are an evolutionary trend toward the sword; they kept some benefit in certain periods because they all interact slightly differently with different types of armor. But of course the sword isn't going to have as long a history as the spear; a spear requires a relatively straight stick and something to sharpen the end with, in the end. The closest you can get to a sword at the same technology level is a club.

True. The concept of a sword being used for both is something that postdates swords actually being used to any large extent on the battlefield. Actual swords are designed to do one or the other and are not balanced properly to do both. I don't allow the option in my RQ games. Big swords are slashing weapons, strictly, and short swords are thrusting weapons...though they can be used either way.

Some late period swords are relatively effecient at both (the saber wasn't bad at either though it was a better slashing weapon), but the realities of armor tended to limit it before that, because a slashing weapon had to have some heft behind it to do anything to an armored location, and a heavy sword is a lousy thrusting weapon.

(This is primarily an issue with longswords; shortswords seem to get much more complicated in this area, though they still tend to lean one way or another).