I am pro fist as a basis, because I haven't created a serious battle mage for any RPG in the last 15 or so years. It is very convenient for me that I do not have to deal with weapons in this system. 5 thumbs up!
A few comments people won't like:
We all love discussing things for the sake of discussing. Aristotle is quite right in calling homo sapiens a social animal though a wise animal might be an even better term. We all love to pretend that number crunching and munchkinism are disgusting but still we all participate in debates on those topics: Is that because we are self-deluded or because we are so self-righteous that we really want to convert the others to our inspired viewpoint.
RPGs are make-believe: They allow us to indulge and explore things we cannot explore (easily) in normal life: Changing the sex, killing somebody, being a hero, doing magic, being a genius, being bright/beautiful whatever. So it is a common fantasy of powerless people (e.g. teenagers) to have a long strong weapon to stick into other people (Freud ould love you for that).
There is nothing wrong with admitting the 2 points above: Roleplaying games do not hurt people and are a harmless way of compensating.
I personally feel:
Unfortunately, roleplaying games are still too rarely seen as a form of literature. Literature is by definition fiction. So why worry about the setting too much? The setting is only a help to coordinate the thoughts of the different story-tellers (and readers). It is there to be enjoyed not to hold people down. I think the arm5 system is easily customizable, which is beautiful. It never makes sense though to be pontifical about one bonus or another.
Surely the Balls of Abysmal Flame ruin that for you?
Well, you aren't going to get this, because you'll never get this comparative mix of weapons. In period you get spears, spears and a lot more spears because that's wh tyou get when you have peasant levies.
For me, a better question is "Do the rules model the sorts of stories, based on folklore or history, that I wish to tell?" I don't actually wish to regularly tell mass land battles laqcking the intrusion of magic and as such, the example posed above, IMO, is not a sound one.
Neither. I'm niether self-deluded nor convinced of my evangelical appeal. I'm considering if I should spend my limited writing time designing a freer form of combat for the game to submit as a magazine article. To do this I'm discussing it with the section of the game's community that is interested in and have considered at some depth, the topic. I think you taking this entirely functional bit of correspondence and asking if I'm self deluded or self deluded is simply rude.
That's not the question we are discussing, though. We are discussing how the game should model combat, not if combat is good or bad. Also, keep your Aristotle and Freud to yourself, please.
Or, as Jung would probably say, you Freudians project your own issues on everyone else. See how useless these things with "As Authority A would say..." are? How passive agressive they look?
OK, that's for your input to the thread, but it's more polite to discuss the issue, rather than try to analyse the other participants.
We do not seem to share the same perception of the concept of "author-ity"
you (wrongly) assume I am a Freudian - which is an ad homine argument. Fie!
I am astonished that quoting authorities is inappropriate when talking about a time in which quoting authorities was the only way of gaining authority.
My claim to authority by quoting authorities that obviously do not fit the context was totally self-ironic (which can't be disputed since I have supreme authority when it comes to statements concerning my own author-ity. It is a projection - but even an intelligent caveman never sees anything but the projection and has no way of discovering the idea behind it). A reader's attempt to subvert this authority of mine by talking about the uselessness and aggressiveness of my texts might say more about that reader than about me.
PS: If you really do not enjoy this then don't answer.
PS2: I resisted the temptation of quoting people in the text above - as a sign of goodwill. The Internet may be the wrong place to lead a medieval debate: English definitely is the wrong language. Maybe we could have a Latin section???
For a few years I focused on 'sword & shield' fighting (SCA-insanity), and I almost always left my 'triangularish/teardroppish' shield against my shoulder while moving my shield-hand out from body -or back. Rather minimal movements. ...maybe a tiny bit of up and down...
My round shield I tended to move up and down my body more, and be a lot more active with (as active as I could with the top of a 50gal oil drum.
However, for non-small shields it always seemed they were just obstructions you would carry around to attack people from behind.
My "sword" (ok - rattan & duct tape) would defend me in-as-much as I would have it 'placed correctly' to deflect someone's swing. It always seemed WAAAAAY too difficult to try and actually INTERCEPT my opponent's attack. This 'placed correctly' position usually helped immensely to defend my non-shield side. (freakin' left-handed attackers would always kick my @$$) BUT being 'placed correctly' my "sword" was less effective for attacking...
just some recollections here... I do not mean to come across as some sorta actual swordsmen... heh... Fighting in jogging shoes whilst wearing 'moving blanket & ABS plastic' armor was more a sport than histerical re-creation...
IMC, no, because I prefer people not to use great weapons unless they are on horseback. I don't care if the numbers are "real": I care if they encourage people to play the way I'd like.
That's certainly an interesting opinion. All or nearly all the Great Weapons aren't viable for mounted characters. I can see why you wouldn't want people using great spears and halberds in a skirmish level game (they are pretty inefficient for that purpose). But two handed swords and great axes are certainly reasonable melee weapon choices in skirmish level fights.
Oh, because my games seem to be city based mostly, now, and mostly this means you can't stride aqround with a double handed axe. So, colour, rather than mechanics.
It is mechanic as well: Great weapons can't be used indoors normally, because the ceiling is low and the rooms are (usually) small in the Middle Ages. The same goes for the average cave, dungeon and some forests. A small room is a beautiful way of disarming a martial player.
Well, I should think that's an entirely separate issue from the stats of the weapon. The stats of great weapons shouldn't be nerfed because they aren't appropriate in many situations. The fact that they aren't appropriate should be reason enough not to be overly reliant on them.
The weapons should still have the right stats so they do what they are supposed to do when it is appropriate to use them.
Err.... I thought great weapons were extremely difficult to wield on horseback, precisely... It seems to me that the nerfing of great weapons in Thimothy's saga could be done differently (not many city officials would appreciate you carrying polearms in a city after all, and the size of interior spaces is rather small as said above) more than nerfing the weapon per se. A great weaponis perfectly OK in an outdoors setting....
To me game rationale and collaborative building of the setting with the players works better in preventing some abuses, but that is me
