Heavy crushing/smashing weapons: Why use them?

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Landwalker

Which makes them fine for mid-adventure, context-appropriate weapons. But not for deciding how to build and equip a character in the first place.

Depends on your play style. If you fully expect to have your weapon broken, taken away by guards, lost while fording a raging river, or thrown away and replaced by a piece of good loot in the first play session, why not take something cheap?

[Landwalker]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Do they not need stats then?

I'm not saying, and haven't said, that they don't need stats. I'm questioning why anyone would make the conscious decision to say "Hey, I'm going to make a combat-minded adventurer (because nobody else would be entertaining ST 12+ weapons in the first place) whose primary weapon is [practically crippled]!"

Originally Posted by malloyd

If you fully expect to have your weapon broken, taken away by guards, lost while fording a raging river, or thrown away and replaced by a piece of good loot in the first play session, why not take something cheap?

Exactly. Why not take a dueling polearm?

[Carlos]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Miyamoto Musashi once famously did so.

Perhaps improvised weapons don't see use in your games, but they come up reasonably frequently in mine.

Musashi have Katana 30 on Martial Arts 3rd edition. That's enough to say.

And that's not the point. Improvised weapons are really good when you have no weapon at all (a improvised weapon can be a life saver and I know that!). However, a adventurer will not stay with a improvised weapon for all his carerer...

So perhaps we have to change the question to this: why a adventurer should choose a crushing weapon when he could choose a cutting and heavy weapon.

The picture below is not from a adventurer, but I guess you can figure out what I mean:

http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/s...hao%20Kahn.png

[DanHoward]

A maul is a tool, not a weapon. It should be classed as an improvised weapon as far as I'm concerned. A great axe is a dedicated weapon specifically designed for killing people (no they are not the same as a woodcutting axe). It is crazy talk to try and make a tool as effective in combat as a weapon.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Landwalker

I'm not saying, and haven't said, that they don't need stats. I'm questioning why anyone would make the conscious decision to say "Hey, I'm going to make a combat-minded adventurer (because nobody else would be entertaining ST 12+ weapons in the first place) whose primary weapon is [practically crippled]!"

Honestly I don't really see the difference between a Hammer and a Halberd with a back spike. The museum pieces I've seen, and replicas I've wielded aren't significantly different. If one is double dagger than the other ought to be as long as they have the same weight. Hopefully CCoI will account for this.

Otherwise I can think of a few reasons:

• Availability: Dueling Halberds aren't going to be available to a 9th century fighter for instance. They haven't been invented yet. I'm a little dubious of Martial Arts making them TL3 anyway, Halberds (especially "demi-" length ones) are a weapon of pike-and-shot warfare, AFAICT. This might be errata, really.
• Stylist: If you've trained in a style that centers around a given weapon, you'll probably want to wield it.
• Damage: As has been repeated throughout this thread CCoI will fix this.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Landwalker

I'm not saying, and haven't said, that they don't need stats. I'm questioning why anyone would make the conscious decision to say "Hey, I'm going to make a combat-minded adventurer (because nobody else would be entertaining ST 12+ weapons in the first place) whose primary weapon is [practically crippled]!"

First would be Culture.

the Second would be for smashing open sealed chambers, remember, dungeon crawlers are only a step removed from graver robber, and the maul is primarily a tool, and weapon second.

[lexington]

Originally Posted by Carlos

Again, money is not a good argument. It's expected that a decent adventurer (warrior) should have a decent weapon. And when I say "a decent weapon", I'm not saying a magic weapon or those weapons full of qualities from DF I. Just a normal weapon. It's not like the adventurer will say "Oh, I don't have a weapon. I'll have to go out there and find some wood piece to kick ass"

If you're disarmed you sure will.

Originally Posted by Landwalker

I'm not saying, and haven't said, that they don't need stats. I'm questioning why anyone would make the conscious decision to say "Hey, I'm going to make a combat-minded adventurer (because nobody else would be entertaining ST 12+ weapons in the first place) whose primary weapon is [practically crippled]!"

In game terms there's obviously no reason to do so, of course you can extend this logic to ridiculous munckinism very quickly. The weapons are there if at some point you need one or if you're at TL0 for some reason and can't get anything better. In reality axes replaced hammers as weapons because they really are much better weapons, the same thing happened with guns replacing swords.

[Landwalker]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

First would be Culture.

the Second would be for smashing open sealed chambers, remember, dungeon crawlers are only a step removed from graver robber, and the maul is primarily a tool, and weapon second.

This isn't a culture issue, it's a purely mechanical issue. I know that that is a narrow lens through which to view it, but that's what there is. If culture starts dominating the issue, then it starts becoming justifiable to wield a two-handed rubber chicken or a Cone of Shame, and the descent into absurdity begins.

And a dueling halberd with a hammer on the back would be only one point less effective than a maul for bashing down doors, but much more usable in other situations and by more characters. And it can also do cutting damage. And it can also thrust for impaling damage. Etc.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

A maul is a tool, not a weapon. It should be classed as an improvised weapon as far as I'm concerned. A great axe is a dedicated weapon specifically designed for killing people (no they are not the same as a woodcutting axe). It is crazy talk to try and make a tool as effective in combat as a weapon.

Isn't a great axe a made-up weapon? That's seemed to be the usual declaration...

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Landwalker

This isn't a culture issue, it's a purely mechanical issue. I know that that is a narrow lens through which to view it, but that's what there is. If culture starts dominating the issue, then it starts becoming justifiable to wield a two-handed rubber chicken or a Cone of Shame, and the descent into absurdity begins.

Not the descent into absurdity is exactly where your argument leads because why uses any BUT Grav-mop based on you argument.

The answer is in Culture. You can't use a Grav-Mop because you don't have access to one. You use the weapons is the one you have access to—regards of stats. And Culture is what decides what you have access too.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Isn't a great axe a made-up weapon? That's seemed to be the usual declaration...

Made up name fore a real weapon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dane_axe