Striking with the flat of the blade

[Anders]

So my players are about to go up against skeletons and they'll want to do crushing damage. Can they strike with the flat of the blade or the back of the axe to do this? I seem to remember something about this in Campaigns but I can't find it.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by Anders

So my players are about to go up against skeletons and they'll want to do crushing damage. Can they strike with the flat of the blade or the back of the axe to do this? I seem to remember something about this in Campaigns but I can't find it.

Personally, I'd allow it and just change the cutting damage to crushing. The only in-character reason I can think of for not doing that is the worry that it might damage the blade.

[Nereidalbel]

There really is zero reason cutting damage will be reduced against skeletons. Remember, it's piercing and impaling that fail horribly against skeletons, not axes!

That said, reality (and history) allows for holding your sword by the blade and bashing some skulls with the guard.

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

There really is zero reason cutting damage will be reduced against skeletons. Remember, it's piercing and impaling that fail horribly against skeletons, not axes!

That said, reality (and history) allows for holding your sword by the blade and bashing some skulls with the guard.

Some skeletons have Vulnerable (Crushing) x2. Particularly, those in Magic.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by simply Nathan

Some skeletons have Vulnerable (Crushing) x2. Particularly, those in Magic.

Those are the ones I'm going with, basically. I've modified the templates somewhat, but that's the basic idea.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

There really is zero reason cutting damage will be reduced against skeletons. Remember, it's piercing and impaling that fail horribly against skeletons, not axes!

That said, reality (and history) allows for holding your sword by the blade and bashing some skulls with the guard.

There are videos on that (this one by Skallagrim, for example), if you want to show your players.

[Nereidalbel]

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

There are videos on that (this one by Skallagrim, for example), if you want to show your players.

And if you want to end your opponent rightly, throw your pommel at him!

Originally Posted by Anders

Yeah, I'm gonna reduce the damage by a point or two.

-1/die seems fair enough, and compensated for when smiting things with Vulnerability (Crushing).

[Joe]

Does anyone else kind of feel as if this should attract a -1 penalty to skill, at least until bought off with a technique (or maybe just worked off, like a familiarity penalty) ?

I realize this would a departure from RAW, so obviously, I'm wrong. But I think I would probably rule that way if GMing this: after all, this involves a change of grip, an unfamiliar blade profile, the blade would respond very differently when striking/sliding against surfaces (i.e. when blocked or parried), you'd have to leave out any of your techniques that relied on draw cuts etc, some openings in the flow of combat would no longer be viable, other kinds of opening would become available... and so on.

Any takers?

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

And if you want to end your opponent rightly, throw your pommel at him!

Yeah, that was a funny one. I still think it was something medieval writers put in as a joke or a trap, though - IIRC, the fechtbuchen were a means of advertising their services as teachers, so they would sometimes leave things out, or add pointless bits, so that people would need to go to them.

[sjard]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

And if you want to end your opponent rightly, throw your pommel at him!

Sadly, that would only work in modern fights... sword pommels weren't screwed on, they were usually riveted on. Ie, the tang wasn't threaded, and was hammered flat over the pommel to hold it all in place tightly.