[LTC] About axes and long handles

[Spada]

So, it seems like the Long Handle option on LTC2 p. 13 predates most of the weapons on the Axe/Mace table from Low-Tech with better options. Why use a Long Axe when I can just snap a long handle in a normal Axe, for the same price and weight, and enjoy it without having to get it back ready every another turn plus with +1 damage? Also, would it make sense to stick a Long Handle in a Long Axe in order to get that Reach 3?

This happens to the Tetsubo as well. There's simply no reason to use one at all if I can just stick a long handle to a standard Mace, and enjoy similar damage and reach with less weight and without having it getting unbalanced too. Well, the blunt point is still a thing, but is it really worth something?

So my question is, was this an overlook to the Long Handle option in LTC2? What could be done in order to put things back in balance? Should I completely dish out the long axe (including it's unreadying attacks) in favor of the Axe with a long handle?

Another question is, should I consider the Tetsubo already getting +1 damage from the Flanges, Spikes, or End Caps option on LTC2 p. 14? Or could it be further enhanced by it?

[Dalillama]

The usual answer is that the later material is considered current, as a modification or addition of nuance to previously published material. So the answers in order are Yes, yes, and no respectively.

[Anthony]

A lot of this is really a problem of granularity. At the same weight, an axe with a 6' handle is going to be slower than an axe with a 3' handle, but it's not going to be a factor of two slower (and to some degree the speed differences can be compensated for by using different strikes and grips), but GURPS doesn't offer any options between "attack every turn" and "attack every other turn".

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Dalillama

The usual answer is that the later material is considered current, as a modification or addition of nuance to previously published material. So the answers in order are Yes, yes, and no respectively.

I don't think the Low Tech Companions should be seen as later sources than Low Tech. Weren't they basically concurrent releases and developed at the same time?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't think the Low Tech Companions should be seen as later sources than Low Tech. Weren't they basically concurrent releases and developed at the same time?

That's correct.

[Rupert]

I would suggest that the GM should take the view that if something, once modified, looks the same as some other thing, it's become that other thing.

[Spada]

Another thing: One-handed weapons with long handles. A Pick with a long handle can be used one-handed without any downsides even to Reach 2, reaching the same as most weapons (except maybe longsword thrusts) require two-hands to get to the same reach. There’s simply no downside in applying long handles to any weapon using Axe/Mace at all (as they almost all have unbalanced parries already), except getting it’s required ST a bit higher. Is that design-intended? Because the +1 damage plus +1 Reach while requiring only one hand to wield it seems to result in some shenanigans and leave no reason at all to use shorter weapons unless you’re limited by ST.

[Thamior]

I think it's an unintended omission on LTC part. Something tells me that if you would use this longer handle axe in one hand IRL it would require more time to return it to ready position. Watch some Shadiversity videos and it becomes obvious.
I would continue the rule "A weapon that isn’t already unbalanced gets a U on its Parry stat." with "A weapon that already has it should add a turn of ready time."

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by Spada

So, it seems like the Long Handle option on LTC2 p. 13 predates most of the weapons on the Axe/Mace table from Low-Tech with better options. Why use a Long Axe when I can just snap a long handle in a normal Axe, for the same price and weight, and enjoy it without having to get it back ready every another turn plus with +1 damage? Also, would it make sense to stick a Long Handle in a Long Axe in order to get that Reach 3?

This happens to the Tetsubo as well. There's simply no reason to use one at all if I can just stick a long handle to a standard Mace, and enjoy similar damage and reach with less weight and without having it getting unbalanced too. Well, the blunt point is still a thing, but is it really worth something?

So my question is, was this an overlook to the Long Handle option in LTC2? What could be done in order to put things back in balance? Should I completely dish out the long axe (including it's unreadying attacks) in favor of the Axe with a long handle?

Another question is, should I consider the Tetsubo already getting +1 damage from the Flanges, Spikes, or End Caps option on LTC2 p. 14? Or could it be further enhanced by it?

MY answer to this is at my table would be (after rolling my eyes and fixing you with the 'really' look) "An Axe with a longer handle IS a long axe. A Mace with a longer handle becomes an unbalanced weapon because it IS. You can not increase the force, increase the leverage and not increase the unwieldy nature of the physics involved just because a piece of errata got printed somewhere."

Above all it should also be pointed out that my normal answer to PCs when they come up with something that does sound cool If its so great for you and works too well, you can bet you will start seeing NPCs using it against you.

Now that said, you aren't beholden to my interpretation:

If the RAW doesn't work for you, don't use it. While I have not encountered this particular issue at my tables, the items you quote seem like there are a lot of easy downsides that may be non-combat or more crunchy than you have considered.

Rather than address your interpretation of the rules I offer these as a number of options that might accompany the advantages you list as a matter of just common sense.

Carrying/using a 4-6ft mace as opposed to 2-3ft mace is very different:
Concealing it, keeping it from snagging in close quarters
Wielding it in close quarters should yield a negative modifier (that extra handle gets in the way if you try to choke up, if not you just cant swing it properly).
Fatigue might also be incurred faster, you may not "penalize" the recovery time, but it does take more effort to do so.
Increase the chance for the handle to break/bend with power blows/all out attacks to damage, as you are greatly increasing the force along a longer lever of similar materials.
Weight/price should go up, and yet again for higher quality materials/craftsmanship (you cant make a quality 4-6ft handle for the same effort as a 2-3ft one... you need to be more precise/careful with the wood selections etc)

It could be argued (up to each GM) that a longer handle is easier to dodge/parry/block because its motion is more telegraphed (these are swung weapons, longer arc and all that)

Mind you that when I refer to "better/worse" Im talking in similar degree to the combat improvement, not arguing that it should be prohibitive just that there are trade offs that may not be recognized only under the umbrella of "weapon construction".

Specific to Tetsubo it is already a 2H 10lbs metal club with extra weight at one end, that's already long enough to allow you reach 2. It becomes unbalanced upon use so Im not sure why you think there would be any advantage to extending the size from ~5ft to ~8ft vs getting a true reach2+ weapon. You do realize that in order for a weapon to have the option for reach2 it has to be at least 4ft long just to cross that Reach1 hex, arguable 5ft to really be able to hit something 3ft distance from the holder and still allow you something to hold onto.

All in all the advantage in combat is not extreme unless this is a low power game where the difference of one point matters greatly. It would be up to the individual GM to assess and decide how it will impact their world/encounter design. I don't think this is the holy grail of weapon loopholes you might believe.

[Spada]

Originally Posted by bocephus

MY answer to this is at my table would be (after rolling my eyes and fixing you with the 'really' look) "An Axe with a longer handle IS a long axe. A Mace with a longer handle becomes an unbalanced weapon because it IS. You can not increase the force, increase the leverage and not increase the unwieldy nature of the physics involved just because a piece of errata got printed somewhere."

Above all it should also be pointed out that my normal answer to PCs when they come up with something that does sound cool If its so great for you and works too well, you can bet you will start seeing NPCs using it against you.

Now that said, you aren't beholden to my interpretation:

If the RAW doesn't work for you, don't use it. While I have not encountered this particular issue at my tables, the items you quote seem like there are a lot of easy downsides that may be non-combat or more crunchy than you have considered.

Rather than address your interpretation of the rules I offer these as a number of options that might accompany the advantages you list as a matter of just common sense.

Carrying/using a 4-6ft mace as opposed to 2-3ft mace is very different:
Concealing it, keeping it from snagging in close quarters
Wielding it in close quarters should yield a negative modifier (that extra handle gets in the way if you try to choke up, if not you just cant swing it properly).
Fatigue might also be incurred faster, you may not "penalize" the recovery time, but it does take more effort to do so.
Increase the chance for the handle to break/bend with power blows/all out attacks to damage, as you are greatly increasing the force along a longer lever of similar materials.
Weight/price should go up, and yet again for higher quality materials/craftsmanship (you cant make a quality 4-6ft handle for the same effort as a 2-3ft one... you need to be more precise/careful with the wood selections etc)

It could be argued (up to each GM) that a longer handle is easier to dodge/parry/block because its motion is more telegraphed (these are swung weapons, longer arc and all that)

Mind you that when I refer to "better/worse" Im talking in similar degree to the combat improvement, not arguing that it should be prohibitive just that there are trade offs that may not be recognized only under the umbrella of "weapon construction".

Specific to Tetsubo it is already a 2H 10lbs metal club with extra weight at one end, that's already long enough to allow you reach 2. It becomes unbalanced upon use so Im not sure why you think there would be any advantage to extending the size from ~5ft to ~8ft vs getting a true reach2+ weapon. You do realize that in order for a weapon to have the option for reach2 it has to be at least 4ft long just to cross that Reach1 hex, arguable 5ft to really be able to hit something 3ft distance from the holder and still allow you something to hold onto.

All in all the advantage in combat is not extreme unless this is a low power game where the difference of one point matters greatly. It would be up to the individual GM to assess and decide how it will impact their world/encounter design. I don't think this is the holy grail of weapon loopholes you might believe.

You seem to got what I meant wrong. I never asked about giving a long handle to a tetsubo (it’s also wooden, rather than iron), what I did ask is if the Tetsubo already accounts for the +1 to cr flange bonus to damage, as it’s not clear by LTC.