DwD Studios

Realistically, it needs an Attack penalty, because a battleaxe has a tendency to glance off of armor and needs a full swing, unlike a sword, which can be jabbed or half swung and still get a hit.

However, since such a penalty is not standard for weapons, perhaps its damage just needs to be reduced.

I don't see raising the STR requirement making it any less common than the longsword unless you raise it a lot.

I actually thought about standardizing weapon damages and strengths and whatnot a bit. Something like Small one handed, Medium one handed, Large one handed and then the same for two handers. I don't know, I haven't really devoted much thought to it. a couple points of damage doesn't seem like a huge deal, but I also thought it odd the Battle Axe and Warhammer were higher damage than a sword. I mean, people throughout history used swords more often for a reason. I think axes and warhammers were better for puncturing armor, so if you wanted to stick with realism, you'd impose a DR reduction and have them do less damage, but that seems like an unnecessary mechanic, again, for just a few points of damage.

So I went and thought about it. I realize this takes some of the potential 'realism' out of the game, but it simplifies the weapon table tremendously. I'd likely break it down something like this.

Small one handed - 1D+2
Dagger
Handaxe
Club
Shortsword
Mace
Whip

Large One Handed - 2D+2
Scimitar
Flail
Longsword
Battleaxe
Morningstar
Spear
Warhammer

Small two handed - 2D
Quarterstaff
Trident

Large Two Handed - 2D+4
Greataxe
Polearms of all kinds
Maul
Two-handed sword

Small Ranged, Range 40, 1D+2
Hand Crossbow
Handaxe (Might consider lower range)
Dagger (Might consider lower range)
Javelin
Sling
Shortbow (Might consider higher range)

Large Ranged, Range 100, 2D+3
Longbow
Crossbow
Spear (Might consider lower range)

Yeah, I kind of like that. Realistically, swords, particularly straight double-edged longswords are among the most powerful and damaging weapons there are without penalty. The only melee weapons I've ever seen do more damage without penalty is the Shaolin twin hook swords that are curved at the tip and can be joined together to do extra damage at a longer range (though require two-weapon combat). But those take special training to use to maximum effectiveness, so the longsword really is the deadliest melee weapon one can use off the shelf.

My recommendation is to make the longsword deadlier than the battleaxe and warhammer and make it the go-to weapon for warriors, while giving Dwarfs a bonus for using axes and hammers.

Well, in a setting with armor, the damage of a longsword is mitigated by its difficulty going through said armor. That's where warhammers (which were really picks) and axes, with heavier heads, could shine. Rather than keeping up with a lot of modifiers, standardizing the damage makes weapon choice more about flavor for the character. There are also lots of other 'realistic' considerations. You can parry or block with a sword, not so with a warhammer or axe (or not easily), a morningstar or flail was dangerous to wield, etc, etc. You can, of course, make rules for everything, but then you're playing GURPS. hehehe.

Longswords never had a problem penetrating armor. That's why they're favored. An ax can bite into armor well, but a hammer is not too effective against metal plating. An ax can bite as deep as a sword, but not as wide, nor can it cut a man in half. A longsword can. A real life beheading with an ax would be equivalent to "00" on a called shot. With a longsword, though, it would be equivalent to simply doubles as a called shot. A sword can also run an armored person through, while an ax can't.

All of this is really irrelevant, as the point was to merely simplify the weapons table, however, plate armor was king until the advent of guns. A sword slash was too spread out. The force wasn't concentrated enough and steel could easily stop it. Swords were the weapon of choice because they had difficulty killing another knight and were excellent for cleaving apart peasants. Clipped from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armor

Plate armour was virtually invulnerable to sword slashes. It also protects the wearer well against spear or pike thrusts and provides decent defence against blunt trauma.

The evolution of plate armour also triggered developments in the design of offensive weapons. While this armour was effective against cuts or blows, their weak points could be exploited by long tapered swords or other weapons designed for the purpose, such as pollaxes and halberds. The effect of arrows and bolts is still a point of contention in regards to plate armour. Longbows and crossbows could also pierce plate armour up to ranges of 200 metres (660 ft) with a lucky shot, notably in battles such as the Battle of Visby, though historian Jean Froissart suggests that the success of such weapons at the Battle of Poitiers was less due to the bodkin arrows used by the English and more due to aiming for the side or rear of the armour, which is weaker. The evolution of the 14th-century plate armour also triggered the development of various polearms. They were designed to deliver a strong impact and concentrate energy on a small area and cause damage through the plate. Maces, war hammers and the hammer-heads of pollaxes (poleaxes) were used to inflict blunt trauma through armour.

I think it is relevant not to perpetuate mistakes.

That wikipedia page doesn't say this.

I would happily buy your reference if it weren't for the fact that the wikipedia page provides no pier-reviewed references, and the only thing it does cite only refers to arrows and crossbow bolts as a threat to armor. It mentions Jean Froissart, but it doesn't cite any work from him nor give any quote.

Much of what I stated is based on the show The Deadliest Warrior, in which they demonstrate the effectiveness of weapons and armor, or lack thereof.

This Wikipedia page about battleaxes, which does provide a reference for its source, says that the longsword was the most effective for its pointed edge (which is likely a reference to the development of the bastard sword), but that the battleaxe was developed with a metal haft for reinforcement, but that plate armored knights tended to survive its blows. It was used more as an impact weapon similar to the mace designed to crack open and weaken armor, which says to me that it was a preparatory weapon to make way for sword thrusts or multiple battleaxe blows and do damage by impact, rather than cutting.

Neolithicwolf, I liked your table, tossed it in the house rules section of the wiki and added ranges. :-) It's a good list to match up weapons not listed in the game.

Larry; thanks. It's just intended to speed things along and simplify the rules further. You could even make the prices the same, but I figured that was far less relevant. :)