One-Handed War Hammer?

[Stripe]

Looking through the Basic Set, Low-Tech, and Martial Arts, I didn't notice stats for a one-handed war hammer. For a game I ran a couple years ago, I just used the stats for a mace from the Basic Set.

Low-Tech, p. 64, says this about them: "WARHAMMER (pp. 70, B274) – Europe. A long, two-handed PICK (pp. 60, B271). Often given a heavy hammer behind the spike; treat as a combination weapon."

The warhammer on page pp. LT70, B274 uses the two-handed axe/mace skill.

Canonically speaking and rules-as-written, am I missing stats for a one-handed axe/mace war hammer somewhere?

Thanks!

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Low-Tech, p. 64, says this about them: "WARHAMMER (pp. 70, B274) – Europe. A long, two-handed PICK (pp. 60, B271). Often given a heavy hammer behind the spike; treat as a combination weapon."

Your answer is in the quoted text. If a warhammer is a long, two-handed pick, a pick (for which page references are given) is a short, one-handed warhammer.

[Kromm]

As Matt said, a one-handed war hammer is a pick in game terms. A long, two-handed one is essentially a halberd. The thing that actually goes by that name in the rules is a hammer of intermediate length, and it got the name because it was squarely in the middle.

[Landwalker]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Canonically speaking and rules-as-written, am I missing stats for a one-handed axe/mace war hammer somewhere?

Thanks!

Not to my knowledge. As far as I know, there aren't any, and this has come up before during some of my "game prep."

There are basically two ways to handle a one-handed warhammer, depending on how much of a stickler your GM is.

1) Use a one-handed pick, with the "Hammer" combination add-on from LT2.14. Advantage: There's pretty much no way a GM can claim that this is invalid, because you're obviously using the two constituent parts of a canonical warhammer: A pick side and a hammer side, both of which are already in the rules. Disadvantage: A one-handed pick has comparatively lower basic damage (relative to Option #2, below), which means its hammer side will also have comparatively low basic damage.

2) Use a one-handed mace, with the "Pick" combination add-on from LT2.14. Advantage: A mace has higher basic damage, so its pick-side will also have higher basic damage, compared to a Pick/Hammer combination weapon. Disadvantage: Not all GMs are willing to buy the "Mace = Hammer, therefore you can put a pick on the 'back' of it" argument. I personally have no issue with this, and the LT2.14 write-up of a Pick Add-on does generalize its applicability to all "Swung, hafted crushing or cutting weapons," a category that does include a mace. If you try to go this route, be prepared for the possibility that you'll lose the argument.

[Stripe]

Thanks, guys!

[Kromm]

While we think of "hammer" as meaning a flat-headed tool that would, if weaponized, be a crushing weapon, things called "hammers" in old-timey warfare were just about always swung spikes. As a rule, the hefty metal lump behind the spike existed to add weight, not for use as a bashing weapon in its own right (though it was doubtless used as such). To reflect impromptu use of such a thing for bashing, just let the wielder roll its usual damage as crushing rather than impaling . . . don't bother adding what amounts to a heavy mace head to a pick unless the extra weight is worth it for the purpose of resisting breakage and adding weapon HP.

[The Colonel]

For reference the fantasy "war hammer" would probably be called a maul in real life IIRC.

[safisher]

I think GURPS gets the deadliness of the warhammer/pick down just right. Penetrations into the torso are much deadlier, historically, than cuts. Of course, nasty compound breaks and fractures from crushing wounds are really hard to treat without modern medicine. I think that's more a matter of the amount of damage rather than type, actually.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Kromm

To reflect impromptu use of such a thing for bashing, just let the wielder roll its usual damage as crushing rather than impaling . . .

Thanks again.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Kromm

As a rule, the hefty metal lump behind the spike existed to add weight, not for use as a bashing weapon in its own right (though it was doubtless used as such).

Probably about as often as you'd use the back end of a single-bitted axe as a weapon, which is to say not very, though you might use it every so often as an actual hammer (the tool, not the weapon).