Re: Swords are annoying
- From: R. Dan Henry <danhenry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:26:37 -0700
On 24 Apr 2007 18:16:32 -0700, Antoine <antoine.from.rgrd@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Does anyone else get annoyed at the proportion of games in which the
best melee weapons are swords?
Sometimes I think axes, spears, halberds, and maces get a raw deal.
Well, the truth is that for a long period of history, swords ruled in
personal combat. They never did more than equal spears or other polearms
for formation fighting.
Axes and knives/daggers: Useful as tools as well as weapons. Most of
them can also be thrown effectively. Except for the obvious battle axes,
they can be carried as tools in places where a weapon would not be
allowed or would attract unwanted attention. Of course, machetes are a
tool-sword, but they are not in the same class with a broadsword,
either.
Whips: My favorite idea for making them specially is allow you to crack
them to frighten animals. They also have good reach if you allow that
and you can make entangling attacks.
Maces and hammers: Good weapons for dealing with heavy armor, but the
correct sword will also do a good job. The thing is, making a good sword
is a difficult, specialized task. Probably anyone who smiths tools can
do a decent job of putting a useable head on a handle.
Flails: They can be allowed to ignore shields, due to their flexibility,
although the main advantage is they are longer than an equivalent maces
and gain more leverage and thus do more damage.
Spears: They can be thrown, they are relatively cheap to make, and they
allow you to keep more distance between you and your foe. But from the
point at which *good* swords become available (and until you can work
iron properly, swords are not so good) until the mounted knight rules
combat and the spear comes back as the lance, swords beat spears. Boar
spears (with a crosspiece to prevent prey from moving too far up the
shaft) remain your best choice against dangerous beasts.
Halberds are pretty awesome weapons; if you need to both fight in
formation and as a individual and only get one weapon, halberds are the
way to go. One thing about halberds is that they have a sharp edge, a
point, and a strong haft, so they can get all of the classic
pierce/cut/thump damage types if you're going that route. Swords are
general either piercing, cutting, or sometimes both. You can strike with
the flat, but that's generally for non-lethal attacking.
Staves: Stick-fighting requires a good investment in training to be
effective (so do daggers -- the D&D cliche list of weapons for wizards
is bizarre in the way it assigns them weapons far harder to use with
little training than the sword, or even the axe), but a master of the
staff is at least equal to a master of the sword and probably has the
advantage. If you're making a game with weapon skills, this is something
you can model.
Pre-Iron Age Settings: Copper or bronze swords don't hold their edge
well and are essentially metal clubs after a short while. They also
break more easily than most weapons. And in a stone age setting, there
wouldn't be anything that could really be called a sword, unless you've
got one of those where the edge is shark teeth or obsidian pieces set
into a piece of wood. And those are exotic enough to be cool and
different.
--
R. Dan Henry = danhenry@xxxxxxxxxxx
If you wish to put anything I post on your website,
please be polite enough to ask first.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Swords are annoying
- From: Keith H Duggar
- Re: Swords are annoying
- References:
- Swords are annoying
- From: Antoine
- Swords are annoying
- Prev by Date: Re: Roguelikers official Facebook group!
- Next by Date: Re: What's up with LOS?
- Previous by thread: Re: Swords are annoying
- Next by thread: Re: Swords are annoying
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
