Long Maces

[tbone]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Is it my imagination, or is that going to be horribly unbalanced?

It is indeed! Anything modeled after existing two-hex axes and hammers should presumably be saddled with the same "requires Ready after swing" drawback. Ugh. (Anyone have a PC who actually uses an axe or maul with that dreaded drawback?)

[thom]

Originally Posted by tbone

Ugh. (Anyone have a PC who actually uses an axe or maul with that dreaded drawback?)

Yep, one of my players (a dwarf) used a Great Axe, and I let him use Kromm's suggested "Extra Ready (one weapon)" for 10cp so he could swing and then bring the Axe back to Ready in one turn. He was pretty happy with that...

thom

[tbone]

Originally Posted by thom

Yep, one of my players (a dwarf) used a Great Axe, and I let him use Kromm's suggested "Extra Ready (one weapon)" for 10cp so he could swing and then bring the Axe back to Ready in one turn. He was pretty happy with that...

Sure, I can see that. Same with PCs who overcome the slowness with high ST.

But PCs who willingly choose a greataxe or maul, and just accept that Ready requirement after every attack... Pretty darn rare, I think!

[thom]

Originally Posted by tbone

But PCs who willingly choose a greataxe or maul, and just accept that Ready requirement after every attack... Pretty darn rare, I think!

Oh yeah! The player never even considered using the Great Axe without the Extra Ready option! <g>

[tbone]

Originally Posted by thom

Oh yeah! The player never even considered using the Great Axe without the Extra Ready option! <g>

I can only recall one player who knowingly, willingly chose a weapon with "requires Ready after swing", and that was... myself. Back in the 3e days, when a normal hand axe suffered that Ready requirement. I made an axe-fighter (with one arm, too), just for the perverse fun of saying "wow, the rules seem to make this choice a really bad idea... so let's try it." It was for a one-shot, so weird was okay. I certainly wouldn't choose a slow weapon like that for an ongoing campaign with lots of battles...

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by tbone

I can only recall one player who knowingly, willingly chose a weapon with "requires Ready after swing", and that was... myself. Back in the 3e days, when a normal hand axe suffered that Ready requirement. I made an axe-fighter (with one arm, too), just for the perverse fun of saying "wow, the rules seem to make this choice a really bad idea... so let's try it." It was for a one-shot, so weird was okay. I certainly wouldn't choose a slow weapon like that for an ongoing campaign with lots of battles...

I've made a few characters who use those sort of weapons. Typically they end up using armed grapples more than the swing...

[Sir Tifyable]

There is a whole rack of morningstars with 6-8' shafts in the Landeszughaus Graz.

If you get a chance, visit it.It's awesome. It's a city armoury which kept all the weapons and armour that was issued to the city's army when defending Graz from the Ottomans.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by tbone

Sure, I can see that. Same with PCs who overcome the slowness with high ST.

But PCs who willingly choose a greataxe or maul, and just accept that Ready requirement after every attack... Pretty darn rare, I think!

I could see potential for a build that makes heavy use of Feint, as I believe Feint doesn't unReady the weapon. Basically, you just keep throwing Feints each round until you get a good roll, then capitalize on that to drop the foe. But I don't think such weapons tend to have enough additional damage/reach to really justify such a strategy (the reason one normally doesn't do the above - throw Feints until you get a good roll, then attack - with a more balanced weapon is because attacking twice is typically better than feinting and then attacking). But personally, my own inclination is to get rid of the ‡ designation, increase the MinST of the weapons that have it a bit (I think they typically have -1 or -2 to MinST compared to what their weight implies, so +1 or +2 - or maybe +3 or +4 if they're particularly long - should work) and just have a general rule that you can wield weapons as though you had 1.5x your actual ST (probably just for meeting MinST, not for damage) in exchange for them becoming unReady after each attack.

[benz72]

Originally Posted by tbone

Sure, I can see that. Same with PCs who overcome the slowness with high ST.

But PCs who willingly choose a greataxe or maul, and just accept that Ready requirement after every attack... Pretty darn rare, I think!

I expect this is an artifact of the 'must do something EVERY TURN!' paradigm in player thought. It's the same thing with Evaluate and Aim to a lesser extent. Even Feint doesn't get the love it deserves because players fear 'not doing damage NOW NOW NOW'.
If I were going to use this in play (as a GM) I think I'd have some teamwork with a pair of axemen or an axeman and a weapon& shield guy who can do sacrificial block/parry. Good coordination of Waits, AoD, AoA and Step should let a well trained team chew through opposition, especially if they are not outnumbered or flanked.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by benz72

I expect this is an artifact of the 'must do something EVERY TURN!' paradigm in player thought. It's the same thing with Evaluate and Aim to a lesser extent. Even Feint doesn't get the love it deserves because players fear 'not doing damage NOW NOW NOW'.

None of that is caused by psychology. It's caused by those options being objectively bad in most cases. If an attack sequence takes twice as long to perform and isn't twice as effective, it's a bad choice. Evaluate+Attack is almost always worse than attacking twice. Same for Feint+Attack. Attacking once with a double-dagger weapon is almost always less effective than attacking twice with a weapon that lets you attack every turn (aim gets a special case, as it's often a larger bonus on a roll with a lower base chance).