Forum

Looking at the 2nd edition weapon tables on pg. 48 and 100, I'd suggest creating a new "Clubs" combat proficiency for both Cudgel and Club.

I'd also like to suggest adding hammers to the weapon table. I could see a Dwarf smith preferring a hammer over an Axe or Mattock.
War hammer (Damage: 6, Injury: 14, Load: 2, Proficiency: Hammers, Notes: --)
Maul (Damage: 8, Injury: 16, Load: 4, Proficiency: Hammers, Notes: 2-handed)

I was getting ready to start a post similar to this but you beat me to it. : )

The 2nd edition weapon skills seem to be more of ones skill with how to use a weapon then if one is trained with a specific weapon, e.g. axes, mattocks, hammers all are balance closer to the striking end and would have about the same weight to size ratio as each other which would mean that they all would fall under the ax skill where as spears are generally lighter and longer with thrusting being more pivotal to how they are used so they are put in there own skill set.

As for clubs I would question way not just put them all under brawling to reflect that it would be harder to hurt someone with a blunt object if it does not have additional weight on the striking end.

.... to reflect that it would be harder to hurt someone with a blunt object if it does not have additional weight on the striking end.

Ewwww....physics.

As a (former) physics teacher, I think the purpose of rules, first and foremost, is to create interesting choices. To the extent they can feel "realistic" to people with subject matter expertise, that's great, but they have to create interesting choices.

I was getting ready to start a post similar to this but you beat me to it. : )

The 2nd edition weapon skills seem to be more of ones skill with how to use a weapon then if one is trained with a specific weapon, e.g. axes, mattocks, hammers all are balance closer to the striking end and would have about the same weight to size ratio as each other which would mean that they all would fall under the ax skill where as spears are generally lighter and longer with thrusting being more pivotal to how they are used so they are put in there own skill set.

As for clubs I would question way not just put them all under brawling to reflect that it would be harder to hurt someone with a blunt object if it does not have additional weight on the striking end.

.
Clubs are generally heavy and/or solid enough to do significant damage. I would include staves and (hypothetically) maces and other blunt melee weapons under the same combat proficiency. Cudgels (like daggers) would probably remain under "Brawling" as they are defined in-game as smaller one-handed weapons. Short-staves are included under the description of Cudgels.

BTW, why no maces in the Weapons table? Maces are canon to the legendarium; we know this because of Grond, the mace belonging to Morgoth. We also have the example of the mace wielded by the Witch-king at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

BTW, why no maces in the Weapons table? Maces are canon to the legendarium; we know this because of Grond, the mace belonging to Morgoth. We also have the example of the mace wielded by the Witch-king at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

I think it's because we don't have heroic mace users in the source material? Matches my memory of the books and think I've heard designers discuss this in an interview too. May be false memory syndrome however...

BTW, why no maces in the Weapons table? Maces are canon to the legendarium; we know this because of Grond, the mace belonging to Morgoth. We also have the example of the mace wielded by the Witch-king at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

I think it's because we don't have heroic mace users in the source material? Matches my memory of the books and think I've heard designers discuss this in an interview too. May be false memory syndrome however...

Nor do heroes get scimitars, or whips. Mentioned in the books, but only in the hands of the Enemy.

For me, this is all an argument for a single "Might" score, to go with Wisdom and Valour. I love the idea of staves and hammers and slings and maces, but I want neither a proliferation of skills, nor awkward groupings (hammers, maces, and staves, for example, just because all are blunt.).

As discussed in another thread, I might houserule one single weapon skill, and then:
- One generic (i.e., not cultural) virtue for each weapon type, for players who want to specialize
- Two more generic virtues for ranged vs. close combat, for those who want to focus on one or the other

Thus, somebody whose character concept is "a mighty swordsman" could take the sword virtue, and the close combat virtue.
But somebody whose concept was, "Eh, competent enough if a fight, but is really more of a diplomatic/sage/burglar/whatever" can use any weapon with equal effect, although not as effectively as the dedicated sword-master.

Thus, somebody whose character concept is "a mighty swordsman" could take the sword virtue, and the close combat virtue.
But somebody whose concept was, "Eh, competent enough if a fight, but is really more of a diplomatic/sage/burglar/whatever" can use any weapon with equal effect, although not as effectively as the dedicated sword-master.

This gets right at what is for me the heart of things: enabling players to establish, explore, and discover their characters. When it comes down to it I'll adjust, add, or toss rules to help them do that.

Clubs are generally heavy and/or solid enough to do significant damage.

The idea was when compared to a weapon with a dedicated weight on the end the potential for damage would be greater then without and depending on the shape, size and how it is balanced will effect how you are going to use it.

I would include staves and (hypothetically) maces and other blunt melee weapons under the same combat proficiency.

"What is different when using it compared to say spear, sword or ax?"
That's what runs through my mind when it comes to skill with a weapon, or a tool for that matter with weapons just being tools made for fighting.

For me, this is all an argument for a single "Might" score, to go with Wisdom and Valour.

That make sense with most of what I have read being that position and awareness is what is going to make the biggest differences when fighting with the specific weapon building on that.

BTW, why no maces in the Weapons table? Maces are canon to the legendarium; we know this because of Grond, the mace belonging to Morgoth. We also have the example of the mace wielded by the Witch-king at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

I think it's because we don't have heroic mace users in the source material? Matches my memory of the books and think I've heard designers discuss this in an interview too. May be false memory syndrome however...

Revising my answer here: heroic mace wielders show up in the Fall of Gondolin.

"Now the last of the battalions was furnished by the folk of the Hammer of Wrath, and of these came many of the best smiths and craftsmen, and all that kindred reverenced Aulë the Smith more than all other Ainur. They fought with great maces like hammers, and their shields were heavy, for their arms were very strong."

While The One Ring's licence seems to be The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, there are nods at the wider works (e.g. the reference to axe wielding Elves of Lindon, or 1e's Darkening of Mirkwood referring to the Orome obliquely).

They'd fit nicely in to the "clubs" weapons, particularly as maces show up in The Lord of the Rings as noted above. They're in the hands of the Enemy there, but nobler hands in the wider works.

Now to think about their potential stats!

I (personally) don't need any textual support for weapon options. If a player thinks some other weapon type would be appropriate to their concept, I'm all for it. (Because, really, if a player thinks a spiked chain makes sense for a Hobbit, that's probably going to be the least of the irregularities they bring to the table. Either allow the spiked chain, or get rid of the player.)

I'm increasingly likely to use a score that forms a trio with Valour and Wisdom and covers all weapon skills. I really don't know what individual weapon skills add to the game, but I do know they take away choice. Because TOR combat rules are so limited, in order to keep combats varied I like to mix up the terrain and adversary tactics, which means that sometimes everybody will be shooting arrows, and sometimes everybody will be in melee. As discussed in other threads, if players want to specialize in certain weapons they should spend their Virtues on that (which means I'll also be creating some culture-agnostic virtues for exactly that purpose.). But if a player wants to be able to pick up any weapon and be equally skilled with it, or even just change up their fighting style partway through a campaign, (where "equal" does not mean "rank 1 in everything") then I think that should be supported.

That doesn't, of course, answer the question of what the stats should be on new weapon types, and how to distinguish them in a design space that has very few variables to play with.