Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Curious which 1E weapons (other then long shafted weapons (longer then spears) and the two handed sword) could not be used with a shield? For instance, could a quarter staff be used with a shield, or what about a morning star (which seems pretty hefty). Battle axes appear in many images and figs from the early 1E period being used with shields, so I have no problem including them in the "can use with shield" category, assuming the handle isn't longer then average.

There are no by-the-book answers to this question (discounting OA), but it is pretty clear that the morning star and quarterstaff could not be used effectively with a shield. Anyway, here are my answers:

Sword: Long, Broad, Short, Scimitar, et cetera
Axe: Hand, Battle
Mace: Footman's, Horseman's
Pick: Footman's, Horseman's
Hammer
Flail: Horseman's, Footman's (if not using the weapon versus armour tables)
Spear: (up to 9')
Trident:
Military Fork
Lance: Heavy, Medium, Light (on horseback)
Club
Dagger

Not reasonably:

Two-Handed Sword
Halberd
Lucern Hammer
Bec-de-Corbin
Bardiche
Flail, Footman's (if using the weapon versus armour tables)
Morning Star
Staff
Spear (9'+)
Lance (on foot)
Pike
Partisan
Ranseur
Spetum
Glaive
Guisarme
Fauchard
Voulge
Bill
(any variants thereof)

Weapons I treat as requiring 2H for effective use include:

• Bardiche
• Bec de Corbin
• Bill-Guisarme
• Fauchard
• Fauchard-Fork
• Flail, Footman's
• Fork, Military
• Glaive
• Glaive-Guisarme
• Guisarme
• Guisarme-Voulge
• Halberd
• Hammer, Lucerne
• Partisan
• Pick, Footman's
• Pike
• Ranseur
• Spear (longer ones)
• Spetum
• Staff
• Sword, Two-Handed
• Voulge

The Morning Star should probably go on that list, too, but I treat it as a weapon that can be wielded 1H or 2H for purely game reasons (i.e., to provide some game rule contrast with the footman's flail).

I have some house-rules for AD&D weapons (including a simplified weapon vs. AC) listed, here.

Damn, thanks for those extensive lists, much appreciated. This post will be printed out and put in my DMG. My knowledge of European Medieval/dark age weapons pretty scant.

Once I realized that all the footman's weapons, battle axe, and morning star are all supposed to be two-handed the weapon lists suddenly made a lot more sense: all the one-handed weapons generally do 1-6 (or 2-5, which averages the same) and swords - long, broad, and scimitar - are the best at 1-8 (or 2-7; again, same average). The two-handed weapons generally do 1-8, 2-7, or 2-8, with the two-handed sword and halberd at the top of the heap at 1-10.

If you don't like swords being clearly the best and want more diversity in weapon-choices then you probably won't like this, but I'm confident it was intentional.

EDIT:

ONE-HANDED WEAPONS (average damage vs man-sized):
Sap (1.5)
Whip (1.5)

Knife (2)

Dagger (2.5)
Garrot (2.5)
Spiked buckler (2.5)

Hand axe (3.5)
Club (3.5)
Horseman's flail (3.5)
Hammer (3.5)
Jo stick (3.5)
Horseman's mace (3.5)
Horseman's military pick (3.5)
Spear (3.5)
Shortsword (3.5)

Scimitar (4.5)
Falchion sword (4.5)
Longsword (4.5)

Broadsword (5)

TWO-HANDED WEAPONS (average damage vs man-sized):
Man catcher (1.5)

Hook fauchard (2.5)

Bo stick (3.5)
Fauchard (3.5)
Glaive (3.5)
Partisan (3.5)
Awl pike (3.5)
Quarter staff (3.5)

Battle axe (4.5)
Bec de corbin (4.5)
Fauchard-fork (4.5)
Footman's flail (4.5)
Military fork (4.5)
Footman's mace (4.5)
Footman's military pick (4.5)
Spetum (4.5)
Trident (4.5)

Bardiche (5)
Bill-guisarme (5)
Glaive-guisarme (5)
Guisarme (5)
Guisarme-voulge (5)
Harpoon (5)
Lucern hammer (5)
Morning star (5)
Ranseur (5)
Bastard sword (5)
Khopesh sword (5)
Voulge (5)

Halberd (5.5)
Two-handed sword (5.5)

On account of the way spacing works, the best weapons tend to be the smaller ones for sheer volume of combatants you can fit into a given space. In that context, long swords and the like are anomalous in their relative superiority to footman's weapons, if the latter are treated as two-handed. I am sure that was the original intent at some point, but I am also confident that it was a thing of the past by 1980 at the latest.

Thats an interesting observation Foster. The damage does seem to follow the general length and weight listed.

Matthew, do you adjust for this length vs. number of combatants in game? If so how?
One of the things that has always confused me about the weapons chart, is that some weapons seem so weak (or heavy) compared to others, why ever choose them? I have always wondered if there was some in game reason (other then personal style, or lowering damage potential from monsters) to include them. For instance, broad swords seem lame compared to long swords and bastard swords. I'd have expected to see the game designed in a way that would increase variety by making some situational advantage to weapons that are less damage inflicting. Perhaps it makes more sense when using weapon speed adjustment (which I've never really messed with much).

I suppose the variety of damage probably had more to do with developing the look and feel of the game (in the minds eye) for the players and DM. For instance, Gygax certainly pushed long swords as the sword of choice you'd imagine seeing most (given its descent damage plus shield, wide weapon proficiency (thieves even) races that can use, and the prevalence in magical swords. So, have options for many looks of swords, but keep the odd ones relatively rare. Or perhaps there was some historical data suggesting long swords were somehow better in combat than something like a broad sword or scimitar?

What do you guys think about the battle axe. At least one site mentioned the vikings had "battle axes" that were both one handed or two (based on the length of the shaft). But then again, the images I can find of the shorter variety seem to also have slightly smaller blades (perhaps hand axes?).





From this site (interesting read) http://www.hurstwic.org/history/article ... shield.jpg

Also, I could have sworn I saw tridents used by gladiators in popular movies (with shields or swinging catching nets) so one handed.

Or is this sort of trident not the same as the actual combat weapon? Once again it seems to come down to the length of the shaft, and how important that might be in dealing damaging blows.

AxeMental wrote: Matthew, do you adjust for this length vs. number of combatants in game? If so how?

Space required is the thing that gives the advantage. Usually I just go with something like the B/X Gygax authored version where you can get three combatants with long swords or four with short swords into the same space (the AD&D space requirements are not useful, unfortunately). In damage terms this ends up 4.5 + 4.5 + 4.5 = 13.5 for long swords and 3.5 + 3.5 + 3.5 +3.5 = 14.0 for short swords, which tells to a greater degree if there are any bonuses involved.

AxeMental wrote: One of the things that has always confused me about the weapons chart, is that some weapons seem so weak (or heavy) compared to others, why ever choose them? I have always wondered if there was some in game reason (other then personal style, or lowering damage potential from monsters) to include them. For instance, broad swords seem lame compared to long swords and bastard swords. I'd have expected to see the game designed in a way that would increase variety by making some situational advantage to weapons that are less damage inflicting. Perhaps it makes more sense when using weapon speed adjustment (which I've never really messed with much).

I suppose the variety of damage probably had more to do with developing the look and feel of the game (in the minds eye) for the players and DM. For instance, Gygax certainly pushed long swords as the sword of choice you'd imagine seeing most (given its descent damage plus shield, wide weapon proficiency (thieves even) races that can use, and the prevalence in magical swords. So, have options for many looks of swords, but keep the odd ones relatively rare. Or perhaps there was some historical data suggesting long swords were somehow better in combat than something like a broad sword or scimitar?

You have to look at CM, OD&D and S&S to understand this. Greyhawk is where variable damage is introduced for the first time, and it looks like this:

Dagger: 1-4/1-3
Hand Axe, Mace, Hammer, Military Pick: 1-6/1-4
Sword: 1-8/1-12
Battle Axe, Flail: 1-8/1-8
Morning Star: 1-8/1-6
Spear: 1-6/1-8
Pole Arms: 1-8/1-12
Halberd: 1-10/2-12
Two-Handed Sword: 1-10/3-18
Pike: 1-8/1-12
Lance: 1-8/2-24
Arrow, Bolt: 1-6/1-6
Sling Stone: 1-4/1-6

The Swords & Spells space to use groupings are a bit different:

1: Dagger, Hand Axe, Mace, Hammer, Military Pick, Spear, Thrusting Pole Arms, Pike
2. Military Pick, Long Sword, Battle Axe, Cutting Pole Arms
3. Bastard Sword, Flail, Morning Star, Halberd
4. Two-Handed Sword

This thread is also probably relevant to your interests: Weapon Type versus Armour Class.

AxeMental wrote: What do you guys think about the battle axe. At least one site mentioned the vikings had "battle axes" that were both one handed or two (based on the length of the shaft). But then again, the images I can find of the shorter variety seem to also have slightly smaller blades (perhaps hand axes?).

Axes come in all kinds of sizes, and it also depends on the size of the man. Since the hand axe is only 1.5' in length, I am inclined to have the battle axe be one-handed, though really 4' is too long.

AxeMental wrote: Also, I could have sworn I saw tridents used by gladiators in popular movies (with shields or swinging catching nets) so one handed. Or is this sort of trident not the same as the actual combat weapon? Once again it seems to come down to the length of the shaft, and how important that might be in dealing damaging blows.

Since it is 4-8' long there is definitely room for it to be one-handed.

My ad hoc, absolutely non-official ruling on this question is that everything with a weapon speed of 6 or lower is one-handed (with the exception of the bastard sword), and everything with a weapon speed of 7 or greater is two-handed. This means that whether a spear or trident is one- or two-handed depends on its length. In every case, I think, this makes the horseman's version of a weapon one-handed and the footman's version two-handed.

AxeMental wrote:What do you guys think about the battle axe.

If a players asks, I generally say, the "Axe, Battle" is one-handed, even though it is clearly not meant to be, per the 4' length Matthew mentioned about. (Though I'd argue that the chart is screwy, as a 4' weapon you swing should require more than the 4' listed under space requirements....)

The long hafted axe in the pic from your post, I'd count as a Bardiche for damage purposes.