Staffs, polearms, endcaps and butt spikes

[Flowergarden]

Hi, I'm here to overthink for a little bit.
Some time ago I made a small weapon customisation system based on Low Tech Companion 2 rules. It's very gamist, (balance more important than realism). So most of the weapons are sticks with modifiers.
Problem I have here is Staffs are TL0, but for some reason have metal endcaps. Okay, maybe it's a legacy issue. But at the same time, polearms used as staffs have the same damage. Most polearms don't have endcaps, as far as I know. But many polearms have buttspikes, and it is an option in LTC2. Problem is, what about blunt version and staff.

Can I combine them? Can I put endcaps/flanges on polearms? And what damage it will be.

The other question would probably be: why you need glaive if you have dueling halberd? No not minST, it's not enough.

[Varyon]

Weapons that lack endcaps should have reduced damage - which means that, realistically, true TL0 staves should be a bit lighter and suffer reduced damage (well, mostly - late TL0 would allow for copper endcaps; note those and the TL1 bronze endcaps should realistically be priced higher than the default iron endcaps). I'd probably assume default polearm stats are for versions that have metal endcaps.

As for glaive vs halberd, the former is cheaper, lighter, and available earlier (TL1 vs TL3). Yes, it has less damage and functionality (lacking a sw imp attack, as well as a Hook), but between the lower cost and lower strength requirement, an army can typically field more men with glaives than with halberds. From the perspective of a player, yeah, the halberd is generally going to win out - although depending on optional rules, there can be cases where the glaive is preferable (if you're using weapons with the Dwarven modifier or are limiting yourself to Defensive Attacks - both options get rid of the U Parry - there are optional rules in Martial Arts to reduce the penalty to Parry multiple attacks in a turn if you're stronger than what your weapon calls for; a beast of a man with ST 22 is only at a cumulative -2 to later Parries when using a glaive, due to having twice the needed ST, but would be at -3 when using a halberd as the character only has a bit over 1.5x ST; both are better than the default -4, of course).

[Flowergarden]

Yes, I assumed the same about polearms, but what about buttspikes? I can put it on staff for thr+3cr? Because you supposedly can put them on.

I'm using rules in MA for parrying with two handed weapons, thare is no ST requirements. And I'm sorry, I shoud make that clear, I was talking about dueling halberds / glaves. Because nobody is using reach 3 weapons in adventuring situations in my games.

As for armies... They used halberds... And not dueling variety.

I was thinking about two types of Unbalanced weapons. One gives +3 to sw damage and other +1. The difference would be that you can't use two swing attack in quick succession. You need to do trust at least half the time. It's like a light version of unready. But I don't know about that. Sounds stupid. Or unbalanced with +1 dmg would have parry -1 instead of unbalanced?

Edit: the other problem is short staff(or does it have endcaps too?) that gives the same damage as two handed Jo. And most of the time twohanded weapons get +1 damage

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by Flowergarden

Problem I have here is Staffs are TL0, but for some reason have metal endcaps. Okay, maybe it's a legacy issue.

And there, you are definitely over-thinking.

At some point, somebody typed in a description of the staff which said it had endcaps. Does this mean that no staff in history, anywhere, ever lacked endcaps? Of course not. That would be nonsense on stilts. Honestly, I don't know why the original writer typed that, when I suspect that a frame-by-frame check on a selection of martial arts movies would show that most staves aren't depicted with endcaps, but it was probably a way of saying "Staves are manufactured as weapons, they aren't just random sticks, so anyone who asks why they cost money when anyone can pick up a stick in any forest should SHUT UP AND GO AWAY".

Of course, they missed the fact that it technically created a contradiction with the GURPS tech level system; games writers are not frickin' logical machines, and we do miss stuff sometimes. They'd probably have deleted the bit about end caps if this had been pointed out, but at heart, they'd likely have been thinking "This is pedantry and anyone who gets this pedantic about exact wording in these rules should SHUT UP AND GO AWAY".

Sigh.

The formally correct solution here is to delete the bit about metal caps and replace it with three or four paragraphs of discussion of carefully selected materials, wood quality, well-finished staves having ends shaped for optimum striking effect, and most of this stuff being below the resolution of the rules system (along with single vs. double-edged sword blades, hilt design evolution, and a thousand other things you'll find discussed at great lengths by hoplologists).

[Varyon]

My guess on how it went down was that, when the Quarterstaff was initially statted out (probably back in the days of Man to Man or something), it was just a piece of wood. Eventually, someone with more knowledge on the subject noted that staves that were meant for the rigors of combat typically had metal endcaps or similar to increase strike force. At that point, a decision needed to be made - can you add on metal endcaps to get a +1 to damage, or are the endcaps already there? Considering GURPS already has a habit of overestimating weapon weights, they probably opted for the latter (as it would make an endcap-less staff lighter), and thus removing the endcaps caused a -1 to damage. But the weapons had already been assigned TL 0. Either this was overlooked or was considered to be too nit-picky to address directly - just leave it to the GM of a TL 0 campaign if they want their staves to use the book weights and damage (despite just being made of wood) or if they'll adjust both downward to account for the lack of metal endcaps.

And, ultimately, this is something the GM needs to make a call on.

[Icelander]

I think it's below the resolution whether the staff is all made of some dense hardwood or if it's made of lighter hardwood and has metal endcaps. If it's made as a weapon and bought at full price, it has the listed stats. Expect improvised staves to have the damage penalty.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

The formally correct solution here is to delete the bit about metal caps.

The simple solution is to add "wooden staff" to the weapon charts with a -1 to Sw and Th.

[Flowergarden]

Thanks to everyone, sometimes I need someone to tell me I'm overthinking, I suppose)
I would just forget about endcaps. It's not even a choice most of the time. Except... if you hunting rust monsters or something.

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I think it's below the resolution whether the staff is all made of some dense hardwood or if it's made of lighter hardwood and has metal endcaps. If it's made as a weapon and bought at full price, it has the listed stats. Expect improvised staves to have the damage penalty.

That works for me. A quarterstaff is a staff that works decently as a weapon. Whether that's because it has metal endcaps or because it's really well-chosen wood is below the resolution of the system; either can explain why it costs more than a random big stick, if anyone really, seriously cares.