Heavy crushing/smashing weapons: Why use them?

[SuedodeuS]

1) There isn't a lot of difference between dead (crushing) and really dead (cutting).
2) Crushing weapons require less maintenance and are a bit more resistant to breaking, as they've no need for a hard (and thus brittle) edge.
3) Crushing weapons are a lot more difficult to accidentally kill yourself with. (fall on a maul, get a bruised stomach; fall on an axe, see how close to digested your last meal is)
4) You believe that blunt force trauma is far more effective at killing/incapacitating than any cut (some stories say Musashi believed this).
5) Psychological warfare. (IMO, a more likely reason Musashi frequently used a bokken)
6) You enjoy the sound of bones breaking.
7) You have something against bladed weapons. (many settings disallow religious figures, like clerics, from using blades)
8) You can confidently use it as a tool, due in part to point 2.
9) The +1 damage (which will apparently be in LT) is enough of an edge for armor penetration to justify getting rid of cutting.
10) Knockback. Keep in mind that knockback also forces the enemy to make a DX check - penalized by distance knocked back - to avoid falling prone. In addition to having difficulty defending (thus allowing telegraphic attacks), this can make the skull a much easier target, and once you start targeting that there is no longer any difference between crushing and cutting.

[lachimba]

There are plenty of good locations to target with Crushing attacks

From GURPS Martial Arts Case Study Choose Your Hit Location Wisely by Peter V. Dell'Orto

Crushing Attacks, Excellent Targets: Skull; Joints (Hand); Joints (Foot); Nose; Jaw; Face; Neck; Joints (Arm); Joints (Leg); Vitals; Groin.

Crushing Attacks, Good Targets: Hand holding a Shield; Spine; "C" reach Weapon; Hand; Foot; Reach 1 Weapon; Reach 2 Weapon; Buckler; Small Shield; Light Cloak; Arm; Leg; Medium Shield; Heavy Cloak; Large Shield; Torso.

A cutting, piercing or imapling attack sometimes does the same damage or sometimes even worse.

[Wraithe]

Another minor note is that a crushing weapon won't get stuck in your target. Not that GURPS models this particularly beyond impaling/picks.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Carlos

I mean, cutting bones shouldn't be almost as deadly as broken than to dust?

Yes, yes it should, the damage has the same ability to kill your or render your limit crippled.

you want to know the real differance is? in the Healing Tech needed for fix the two.

Cutting can be sutured easily...if it crushed? well I'm not sure even if modern mediace can handle that... but in DF you got healing magic...

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

This is such an overstated generalization that it's basically meaningless. Spears were always weapons for one thing.

And they significantly pre-date agriculture. That's how far they are from being adapted from agricultural tools.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

The high-strength warrior in my current fantasy campaign uses one-handed axes with a hammer back-end (Either a pair of them, or one and a shield, befitting the martial style he's learned). He would quite often use the hammer end. See, he didn't need the extra after-armor damage most of the time (Lighter-armored enemies were plenty dead from the hammer end), and the heavily-armored ones who took little damage from it were knocked back, which gave him great battlefield control and a fair chance of putting many enemies straight to the ground, which usually makes them trivial to deal with. I was plenty skeptical when he chose those weapons, but they proved themselves many times over.

[Dangerious P. Cats]

Has there been a culturue/time period where even though cutting weapons (like swords) and crushing weapons were equally accessable but people showed a generine prefference towards crushing weapons?


I think with systems like GURPS, which pride themselves of accuracy and proper detail, there needs to come a point where we accept that some weapons are just better than others and there is no benifit (other than coolness and fashion) to taking certain weapons where others are options. It's sad, but realistic.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

Is No-Tech still going ahead?

No Sense of Humor [-10]

[Carlos]

I have beeing use the Maul as the example of weapon on this thread and some said (1) Some use because their TL; (2) Mauls are primarily tools, their use as a weapon are; (3) They are cheap.

(1) - Ok, Maul is a TL 0 weapon, but other weapons, like a mace, is a TL 2;
(2) - The example used above, the mace, is not a tool. It's a genuine weapon;
(3) - There're a lot of other cutting weapons that are very cheap too, like axes, glaives, scythes. Besides, it's expected that a adventurer have enough money to buy a normal weapon or to get it by other means.

[Green-Neck]

Originally Posted by Dangerious P. Cats

Has there been a culturue/time period where even though cutting weapons (like swords) and crushing weapons were equally accessable but people showed a generine prefference towards crushing weapons?


I think with systems like GURPS, which pride themselves of accuracy and proper detail, there needs to come a point where we accept that some weapons are just better than others and there is no benifit (other than coolness and fashion) to taking certain weapons where others are options. It's sad, but realistic.

The mace co-existed with well made edged weapons in the european theater as demonstrated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLGTC7ovJxo
watch from 7:20.
People obviously chose crushing weapons for certain situations.