Falchions: is there a point in using them?

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

You can fast draw a falchion, you cannot fast draw an axe.

Also the topspike is very much irrealistic and almost every knownful GM would disallow it.

As lwcamp says, axes 60-120 cm long with top spikes did exist ... in 14th through 16th century Europe. The short ones were for cavalry and the long ones were for armoured combat on foot (blending into what GURPS calls the various Duelling * polearms). Here is one reproduction (link). GURPS distinguishes between cutting, piercing, and smashing axes (and between largish and smallish examples) but the period term for all of them was usually just “axe.” I don't know of any other places or times where such things were common. They also don't seem common in fiction and art.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Langy

All you need to do is have the axe blade facing forward and hanging downwards, similar to a sword blade. It's not difficult to imagine a method of holding an axe like that. It'd then work exactly like a sword quick-draw. You might be able to quick-draw an axe that's in your belt blade-up, but it'd be more difficult.

Wouldn't that bang horribly against your leg?

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

It may or may not be a GURPS falchion of which he speaks, but the reference I always remember is from1603-6:

Lear: ... I've seen the day, with my good Biting falchion, I could have made them skip...

This might well be a case of Gurps v. (Elizabethan) English.

Gurps sticks the word "Falchion" with a technical meaning that plain English doesn't. There are many Renaissance swords that English calls "falchions" that Gurps wouldn't. Those are simply single edged (and sometimes mildly curved) Thrusting Broadswords with simple hilts.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

Wouldn't that bang horribly against your leg?

It'd work the same as a heavy scabbard, so... yes?

[gilbertocarlos]

Originally Posted by Landwalker

There's no reason whatsoever to disallow a perfectly feasible and physically possible weapon or weapon "accessory" just because it wasn't adopted in our known history. When you look at some of the bizarre things our history did produce, putting a spear tip on the top of an axe haft is pretty tame. There may be plenty of other reasons to disallow it: "The smith has never done it before and wouldn't be able to create a working prototype within the desired timeframe," "this particular culture has no conception of such weapons," or whatever. But "it's not historical" isn't one of them. Especially in any game that doesn't hold fast to our own known history (to use the most obvious, soft-ball example: Dungeon Fantasy).

The problem is not with an axe+spear point, the problem is with an axe+spear point that you use the spear point with the axe/mace skill. All weapons I find of the axe/mace category are sw or hooks, I even started a thread before about it(with the weapons being the hatchet+spear point vs the shortsword).

Originally Posted by Langy

Eh? Since when can you not fast-draw an axe? I thought fast-drawing throwing axes was one of the RAW examples of fast-draw, though I may be mistaken.

It is not said in any book, also it is suggested the impossibility here:

Dual Ready†
You can use a single Ready maneuver to draw a weapon with either hand. Specialize by weapon combination in left hand/right hand order; e.g., Dual Ready (Axe/Pick) lets you ready an axe in your left hand and a pick in your right. This is mostly redundant if you can Fast-Draw those weapons – but not every weapon allows Fast-Draw.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

The problem is not with an axe+spear point, the problem is with an axe+spear point that you use the spear point with the axe/mace skill.

This has always been one of my biggest concerns with the building a weapon section. For a weapon built like that, would it make sense to allow a new skill for custom weapons (maybe with higher difficulty or something)?

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

This has always been one of my biggest concerns with the building a weapon section. For a weapon built like that, would it make sense to allow a new skill for custom weapons (maybe with higher difficulty or something)?

I wouldn't require a new skill. At most, give it a skill penalty that can be bought off with the Exotic Weapon perk.

[B9anders]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

Heh.

Yep. Complete agreement here. I was more responding to it being mentioned as a published example, finding that such didn't match my memory, searched the PDF and figured that it wouldn't hurt to mention the results of said search. While its' not a published example, its' also not prohibited anywhere that I can find either.

IIRC, kromm commented on this at one point. He felt hatchets were the only axes light enough to qualify for a fast-draw speciality.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by B9anders

IIRC, kromm commented on this at one point. He felt hatchets were the only axes light enough to qualify for a fast-draw speciality.

If it's purely a matter of mass or better mass to strength ratio, then many large swords wouldn't be fast drawable.

[Ji ji]

Originally Posted by jabarto

There's something I've been wondering off and on for a while now, in regards the falchions in Low Tech and the falchion variant in Low Tech Companion 2. Simply put, I'm unclear on what exactly they're suppose to be good at, particularly the large variant.

"Falchionizing" a broadsword significantly increases its weight, cost, unbalances it, and lowers its thrusting damage, all for a mere +1 to swing damage. If, instead of going with that, you put a top spike onto an axe, you get a weapon that performs better in both respects for about 1/8 of the price. What's more, falchions are a dubious choice even when compared to other swords because of the unbalanced parry; to overcome that, you would need to either make thrusting attacks (in which case a regular sword would be better), or defensive attacks (in which case a regular sword would still be better).

Smaller falchions aren't unbalanced, but their cost increase means that come perilously close to losing their price advantage over larger swords (the only reason I can see for choosing a small falchion over a thrusting broadsword is if you're direly strapped for cash and really need the extra damage over a regular shortsword).

Now, I'm guessing there's some realistic/historical/etc. reason for this, but I do have to wonder why time was even taken to stat them if there's no obvious reason to want one. Or is there something I'm missing?

In a simulative game, there is no reason to "balance" weapon performances.

A large falchion is not a perfect weapon. It can be a good weapon for capital executions, for example. It's more expensive than an axe, but it's better looking, too.
In history, combat falchions were usually short. That is, falchion-ed shortswords. There are examples of long falchions, but in game terms they are broadsword slightly cut-oriented. Game mechanics have a maximum resolution, and similar falchions don't justify different stats from regular broadswords. If you have a large real falchion, it's correct that it's unbalanced. It is an executioner weapon, not a combat weapon.

Furthermore, weapon stats are not pieces of a mathematical strategy for optimization. I can prefer an expensive falchion over an axe because, apart from game statistics, in the culture of my ambientation an axe is a peasant weapon and I'm a noble man. Or because a falchion is carried in a scabbard bound to my waist, where an axe is carried in a belt-ring with a blade scabbard. I can wield my falchion in a second, while an axe requires several.
I can prefer a shortsword falchion because it's more conceable than an axe.
The error is thinking of weapons only as statistic, like price/damage ratio. I can think of a lot of reasons for using a falchion.