a "small" suggestion

[McEwan]

I have noticed only two people whom even infrequently carry large weapons. The reason for this is that tho larger weapons require slower swings (both physically and mechanically) they have no advantages over smaller weapons, so it seams to me that Finalhaven has become the teritory of only those who use short swords and simlar weapons.

Let's face it, in combat there is little difference between an elf with two fist reps. and a tsutar with two fist reps. Right now a gavin knight with a dagger is scarrer than an orc knight with a greatsword.

This seams a bit off to me.

Now don't get me wrong, I like the fact that the rules are easy and fast, however I believe that giving, say, bastardswords, greataxes, mauls, ect. a base damage of 2 would not be overpowering and inspire a bit mor diversity amoungst th PC

just a thought.

[Lambic]

Well I agree I think it sounds like a good idea, but I believe I know the reason for them only being one point. First its to people from swing 4 damage, Ka already swings three I believe, which can be done a couple of different ways. Second it is because if you want to be trained with a larger weapon all you need to do take the Pikeman class and you can swing headed weapons for 2 and if you are a warrior and using rage then for 3.

I do agree that it would be cool if we could come up with some other game mechanic so that characters who take a disadvantage of using a larger weapon phys-rep and stay true to their character got some sort of benefit for it. I'll try and come up with something and post it here, I'm just not sure what it would be.

You might also have to make the weapon cost more when you buy it with points to make it fair.

[Wyrmwrath]

Maybee a better alternative would be asking the GMs to create a new discipline that focuses on large weapons like a pikeman does on polearms

[Ug]

Tending to agree with Wyrmwrath on this one.

[Kidwynn]

Funny, I agree with both you and Brian as well. Like the idea of a new disciplin instead of a weapon that does more damage.

-Julie

[dier_cire]

on the +1 damage, never, never, never.

On the greatsword/axe wielding discipline. Possible. Basically, at level 4 they get +1 damage on 'large' weapons, and give them a bonus at level 3 for not using a shield. Poof.

Of course, in all honesty, greatswords in real combat are kind of unpractical. Sword and shield will generally always win vs. a greatsword due to the lack of speed.

[WayneO42]

yeah....what Eric said. +1 base to a weapon is way off balanced. The advantage to the weapon is reach when fighting in a line.

[Dallid]

Exactly. A front line with sheilds and short weapons backed up by a second line with large, reaching weapons, behind which are the mages and archers, is a very deadly thing. It's all in the tactics and how the weapons are used.

[Bob-Z (kabre)]

I completely agree with McEwan. I use a combination of handax and a hand/half ax purely for variety and a character attribute, but I'd be five times more effective in combat if I used a nice, balanced, long (comparitively) short-sword (like everyone else does).

I think assigning more base damage to a discipline/path/race is total cheese cuz it encourages min/maxing, and discourages selecting a character that someone would have fun playing (so every heavy hitter in final haven is now a Kow/Warrior). If you assign greater base damage to a weapon, you at least know that there is a physical OOG aspect to your fighting that is translated into IG and penalized by having that bigger base damage (i.e. the physrep is much more unwieldy).

[Nelkie]

I could support the two handed weapons doing 2 damage, but you must use 2 hands and and can not use a shield. The two handed weapons would not included spears, polearms, & staffs. It should included large headed weapons and very large swords. It is not that big a benifit because a shield can block the big weapons all day and the short sword could easly hit more offten than the larger weapon. So, sure, have the large weapons do 2 damage, it won't effect much, and will not unbalance the game in my opinion.

[Bob-Z (kabre)]

I like it that

[Curufin]

A +1 to a large weapon (and I assume that large means two hands) might not be a bad idea. However, I would hate to see people cheese it up.
I would like to see something to encourage weapons outside of the sword shield combo that is so prevalent at FH. Because of the way the fighting works at FH, a short sword/weapon and shield is the best configuration you can come up with. I personally, am much better at fighting with two weapons instead of a shield and a weapon....but the way it works at FH, I would be much better if I took at shield, which I probably will end up doing. I really like to see diversity on the field, I think all the missile weapns (bows, x-bows) really add flavor to the game. And I think the game could really benefit from more flavor (not just more bows, but axes, polearms, hammers, knives, maces, etc.).

[Curufin]

Actually, I also like what Aaron just put on the table.

[dier_cire]

I'd love to see Conner swinging 3 vorpal...

Other issue is what's a large weapon. Part of the beauty of Fh right now is weapon size doesn't matter. There is no small, short, long, two-handed...

[Bob-Z (kabre)]

Yea because it's really not the big a deal when fighting NPC's, and even in PC to PC combat, the big dudes who can now swing crush with base 2 now have to take vorpal without being protected by a shield (and while using a very slow weapon that can't parry very well). and eric, connor may be swinging 3 vorpal, but hes very open to attacks with that huge ass, unweildy weapon and no shield. I also might argue that weapons in the +2 base range probably couldn't do vorpal, as the concept of vorpal is a very surgical "get around/between the armour" sort of hit, not just straight power