Coupla weapon questions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Coupla weapon questions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
draconic_swine
07-20-06, 07:22 PM I have a couple of ideas for weapon designs, but I'm kinda torn on how to handle some mechanics for both, so I decided to consult the collective knowledge you all have to offer.

1) I have recently grown fond of the "lugged" spear design, known by some as the boar spear. For those of you not familiar with it, you can see images here (http://www.armor.com/view.html?pole112a.jpg), here (http://www.armor.com/view.html?pole146a.jpg), and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar_spear). I know they were quite useful in controlling your opponent's weapon and parrying. Unfortunately, these mechanics don't exist in D&D. Do you think a disarm bonus would be appropriate, or are the lugs too small? I know D&D likes giving disarm bonuses to flexible weapons or weapons with hooks, but I was wondering if this could qualify.

2) All double-weapons (that I know of) have the attacking parts on either end of the weapon. Do you think it would be possible to have a double-weapon whose attacking parts are on the same end. More specifically, I'm thinking of a halberd that, instead of a spear point, had a sabre on top (unfortunately, I can't seem to find the picture I saw). Could this function as a full-blown double-weapon, or would I have to choose between either the axe or the sabre each round?
draconic_swine
07-22-06, 10:54 AM :bump:
Rulebook
07-22-06, 01:02 PM i think your spear thing would be functionally similar to the partisan in terms of whatever it gives you.

as for double weapons, rules-wise i cant see any reason why not... but i dont think its kosher though.
Vahenir
07-22-06, 06:03 PM The lugs on a spear have nothing to do with parrying. A spear is not a weapon suitable for defense. Too long. Too 'unwieldy' in that regard. Lugs are there to keep you from slamming the weapon so far into your opponent that you lose it. Since there's no concern for this in D&D, I'd say the lugs are flavour, not mechanical features.

And I say go for it on the double-weapons thing. It would be perfectly reasonable, for instance, to have a bec-de-corbin that can attack as both a hammer and a pick. Although it will become an issue if you get into weapons that have more than two modes of attack - such as the pollax, which has an axe, a hammer, and a spear-point/spike.
Waterhammer
07-23-06, 12:56 AM You could call the trident a boar-spear, and not be too far off the beam. Of course the trident really has no special abilities to speak of; just it's more spear than the spear in D&D.

I also heard a bit different story on the boar-spears than Vahenir tells: The cross pieces were to prevent the boars from running up the spear and chomping on you, they would keep whatever you were fighting from getting close to you.
Vahenir
07-23-06, 01:29 AM I also heard a bit different story on the boar-spears than Vahenir tells: The cross pieces were to prevent the boars from running up the spear and chomping on you, they would keep whatever you were fighting from getting close to you.

Quite true. But what the OP is describing is not a boar spear. I just chalked that comment up to him not knowing proper terms and meanings. Lugs are small 'wings' at the base of the blade - which is what he described. An actual boar-spear literally has a crossbar on it as wide as the blade is long. Entirely different weapons.

And in either case, neither one was used for parrying at all. And both lugs and the crossbar served similar purposes.
Watchman
07-23-06, 08:08 PM By what I know of it you're a bit off, Vahenir. The crossbar in the boar-spear (and the boar-sword - there was also that version) was there to keep the damned stubborn beast from pushing itself up the shaft to chew on the hunter's unmentionables; the lugs in the Frankish "winged" spear were parrying tools.

It's really logic. By what I know of it spears have their assorted wide-ish "edged" primarily because they help the extraction of the weapon from a body, and this useful feature appears pretty much everywhere metal spearheads were used. If the spear being pushed too deep into the opponent was an issue you'd expect such crossbars and lugs to appear widely too, particularly in weapons like the two-handed kontos cavalry spear or some similar pointy shock weapon whose tactical role practically by definition involves getting rammed into someone's body with some pretty awe-inspiring strenght (kontos thrusts from a charging horse could apparently penetrate several layers of metal armour, if some Late Roman accounts are to be believed; assorted Middle Eastern cataphracts poked each other dead with them a lot). Yet, they're not there. If the solution to a supposed problem would be so simple and easily achieved - certainly much simpler than the issue with extracting the spear from a wound and its solution, methinks - and yet fails to manifest in all but about two special cases, I would dare say there is a strong reason to believe the supposed problem did not, in fact, exist, or was too minor to require addressing.

The weaponsmiths of old and their customers were clever people, after all, and had a great interest in working out any bugs in their gear. Had spear over-penetration been a real problem, and the "wings" a means to rectify it, surely more people than the Franks would have employed them ?

By what I've read of it, and certain amount of deduction would suggest, the lugs or "wings" were simply parrying tool for the "lance-fencing" style of spearwork the Franks favoured for quite a while (the first examples apparently appear in Germanic spears in 4th century AD), and were sometimes accompanied by reinforcing langets running down the spear-shafts as protection against enemy cuts. Given the sheer reach of the spear, its overall tactical usefulness for both infantry and cavalry, and its plain popularity among the warriors concerned (not in the least due to price, as swords and such were quite expensive) such a convenient if not particularly revolutionary device could certainly fill a role.

Of course, in D&D game terms the lugs or lack thereof would have about as much significance as whether a sword has a crossguard or not, ie. none. IMHO aesthetical details ought to be kept separate from the game mechanics, else you'll very soon end up with a downright ludicrous proliferation of weapons and other gear either virtually identical in game terms or saddled with clumsy and contrived special rules to justify their existence.
Sergikins
07-23-06, 11:03 PM I have also had a thing for boar spears... ever since vagrant story. but nonetheless, heres how i would work it

as long spear, except
martial weapon
does not get double damage by setting against a charge (since essentially, the lugs were to prevent the horse/animal from impaling itself too far)

+2 to disarm checks
StevenO
07-23-06, 11:13 PM 2) All double-weapons (that I know of) have the attacking parts on either end of the weapon. Do you think it would be possible to have a double-weapon whose attacking parts are on the same end. More specifically, I'm thinking of a halberd that, instead of a spear point, had a sabre on top (unfortunately, I can't seem to find the picture I saw). Could this function as a full-blown double-weapon, or would I have to choose between either the axe or the sabre each round?

A double weapon would need to strike from either/both ends. What you are asking about is closer to weapons that deal multiple damage types. That is you could add piercing to a weapon that normally does slashing damage. If you think about how double weapons are supposed to work how would they be any different from other two handed weapons if you only struck with one end?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
draconic_swine 07-20-06, 07:22 PM	I have a couple of ideas for weapon designs, but I'm kinda torn on how to handle some mechanics for both, so I decided to consult the collective knowledge you all have to offer. 1) I have recently grown fond of the "lugged" spear design, known by some as the boar spear. For those of you not familiar with it, you can see images here (http://www.armor.com/view.html?pole112a.jpg), here (http://www.armor.com/view.html?pole146a.jpg), and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar_spear). I know they were quite useful in controlling your opponent's weapon and parrying. Unfortunately, these mechanics don't exist in D&D. Do you think a disarm bonus would be appropriate, or are the lugs too small? I know D&D likes giving disarm bonuses to flexible weapons or weapons with hooks, but I was wondering if this could qualify. 2) All double-weapons (that I know of) have the attacking parts on either end of the weapon. Do you think it would be possible to have a double-weapon whose attacking parts are on the same end. More specifically, I'm thinking of a halberd that, instead of a spear point, had a sabre on top (unfortunately, I can't seem to find the picture I saw). Could this function as a full-blown double-weapon, or would I have to choose between either the axe or the sabre each round?
draconic_swine 07-22-06, 10:54 AM	:bump:
Rulebook 07-22-06, 01:02 PM	i think your spear thing would be functionally similar to the partisan in terms of whatever it gives you. as for double weapons, rules-wise i cant see any reason why not... but i dont think its kosher though.
Vahenir 07-22-06, 06:03 PM	The lugs on a spear have nothing to do with parrying. A spear is not a weapon suitable for defense. Too long. Too 'unwieldy' in that regard. Lugs are there to keep you from slamming the weapon so far into your opponent that you lose it. Since there's no concern for this in D&D, I'd say the lugs are flavour, not mechanical features. And I say go for it on the double-weapons thing. It would be perfectly reasonable, for instance, to have a bec-de-corbin that can attack as both a hammer and a pick. Although it will become an issue if you get into weapons that have more than two modes of attack - such as the pollax, which has an axe, a hammer, and a spear-point/spike.
Waterhammer 07-23-06, 12:56 AM	You could call the trident a boar-spear, and not be too far off the beam. Of course the trident really has no special abilities to speak of; just it's more spear than the spear in D&D. I also heard a bit different story on the boar-spears than Vahenir tells: The cross pieces were to prevent the boars from running up the spear and chomping on you, they would keep whatever you were fighting from getting close to you.
Vahenir 07-23-06, 01:29 AM	I also heard a bit different story on the boar-spears than Vahenir tells: The cross pieces were to prevent the boars from running up the spear and chomping on you, they would keep whatever you were fighting from getting close to you. Quite true. But what the OP is describing is not a boar spear. I just chalked that comment up to him not knowing proper terms and meanings. Lugs are small 'wings' at the base of the blade - which is what he described. An actual boar-spear literally has a crossbar on it as wide as the blade is long. Entirely different weapons. And in either case, neither one was used for parrying at all. And both lugs and the crossbar served similar purposes.
Watchman 07-23-06, 08:08 PM	By what I know of it you're a bit off, Vahenir. The crossbar in the boar-spear (and the boar-sword - there was also that version) was there to keep the damned stubborn beast from pushing itself up the shaft to chew on the hunter's unmentionables; the lugs in the Frankish "winged" spear were parrying tools. It's really logic. By what I know of it spears have their assorted wide-ish "edged" primarily because they help the extraction of the weapon from a body, and this useful feature appears pretty much everywhere metal spearheads were used. If the spear being pushed too deep into the opponent was an issue you'd expect such crossbars and lugs to appear widely too, particularly in weapons like the two-handed kontos cavalry spear or some similar pointy shock weapon whose tactical role practically by definition involves getting rammed into someone's body with some pretty awe-inspiring strenght (kontos thrusts from a charging horse could apparently penetrate several layers of metal armour, if some Late Roman accounts are to be believed; assorted Middle Eastern cataphracts poked each other dead with them a lot). Yet, they're not there. If the solution to a supposed problem would be so simple and easily achieved - certainly much simpler than the issue with extracting the spear from a wound and its solution, methinks - and yet fails to manifest in all but about two special cases, I would dare say there is a strong reason to believe the supposed problem did not, in fact, exist, or was too minor to require addressing. The weaponsmiths of old and their customers were clever people, after all, and had a great interest in working out any bugs in their gear. Had spear over-penetration been a real problem, and the "wings" a means to rectify it, surely more people than the Franks would have employed them ? By what I've read of it, and certain amount of deduction would suggest, the lugs or "wings" were simply parrying tool for the "lance-fencing" style of spearwork the Franks favoured for quite a while (the first examples apparently appear in Germanic spears in 4th century AD), and were sometimes accompanied by reinforcing langets running down the spear-shafts as protection against enemy cuts. Given the sheer reach of the spear, its overall tactical usefulness for both infantry and cavalry, and its plain popularity among the warriors concerned (not in the least due to price, as swords and such were quite expensive) such a convenient if not particularly revolutionary device could certainly fill a role. Of course, in D&D game terms the lugs or lack thereof would have about as much significance as whether a sword has a crossguard or not, ie. none. IMHO aesthetical details ought to be kept separate from the game mechanics, else you'll very soon end up with a downright ludicrous proliferation of weapons and other gear either virtually identical in game terms or saddled with clumsy and contrived special rules to justify their existence.
Sergikins 07-23-06, 11:03 PM	I have also had a thing for boar spears... ever since vagrant story. but nonetheless, heres how i would work it as long spear, except martial weapon does not get double damage by setting against a charge (since essentially, the lugs were to prevent the horse/animal from impaling itself too far) +2 to disarm checks
StevenO 07-23-06, 11:13 PM	2) All double-weapons (that I know of) have the attacking parts on either end of the weapon. Do you think it would be possible to have a double-weapon whose attacking parts are on the same end. More specifically, I'm thinking of a halberd that, instead of a spear point, had a sabre on top (unfortunately, I can't seem to find the picture I saw). Could this function as a full-blown double-weapon, or would I have to choose between either the axe or the sabre each round? A double weapon would need to strike from either/both ends. What you are asking about is closer to weapons that deal multiple damage types. That is you could add piercing to a weapon that normally does slashing damage. If you think about how double weapons are supposed to work how would they be any different from other two handed weapons if you only struck with one end?