Weapon traits...

[reaperwolf]

As written (elegantly I might add) weapons really only have a few traits players care about, STR Min, damage, and 1H or 2H. This means players will equip themselves with the weapon that gives them the most advantage which is damage. As I posted previously the dagger has a STR Min of 1 which means with an average STR of 8 you cause more damage 1d6+3 than a rapier because a rapier (also 1d6 for some odd reason) but because rapiers have a STR Min of 7 you don't get the +1 damage per 2 points over STR Min. So why use it.

Because Rapiers are really good at punching through leather, scale, and chainmail that's why at least historically. They're almost useless against field or full plate but there ya go.

One option is to dump the bonus to damage for high STR. Another is to add traits to some weapons.

Hammers and other bludgeons (maces, flails, clubs, staves, mauls/mattocks, warhammers, etc.) are good vs. plate armors, the armor dents inwards passing the concussive force to the wearer's bones and organs causing massive hemorrhaging. In some cases the armor is so badly dented it causes localized compression killing the wearer. The armor is left more or less intact by most bludgeoning attacks and just needs a little hammering before it can be comfortably worn again.

Piercing weapons such as spiked maces, morningstars, stilettos, rapiers, picks, and spiked mattocks pike right through leather, chain and scalemail. The damage is deep but not terribly widespread so the damage isn't great but non-plate armor offers less protection.

Flails are always given the short straw, damage is low but fumbles are nasty so why use them? Trip and entangling attacks and better yet, shields blocks and parries are less effective because the flail is likely to slide off or around a shield and still hit the defender. When fighting a flail wielder, it's better to dodge than block or parry. Parrying is likely to cause both weapons to lock up leading to some dramatic gameplay as the two combatants struggle to free their weapons or risk disengaging to draw other weapons.

I've already noticed armor protection significantly lags behind weapon damage, two-handed weapons (many 2d6+2 or 3d6) will likely rip right through the measly 6 points of protection of platemail which seems a little off. A shield grants up to 3 more points of protection but honestly, I prefer shields grant a bonus on block reactions as opposed to magically granting additional protection but for now I'm cool with leaving shields alone.

As it stands right now, compare a broadsword and military pick. Same damage (2d6+2) and STR Min (10) but the pick requires 2H and the broadsword 1H leaving you the option to use a shield. Why use a pick then? Adding an armor piercing trait of 2-3 would give me a reason to forgo a shield when fighting enemies wearing non-plate armor.

HOW doesn't need to become bloated like GURPS 4e (which I'm fond of) but any of these tweaks could go into a companion as optional rules.

As in all things enjoy the game HOW you want.

[Deleted]

I agree with your analysis and assessments, for the most part. I would add that bludgeons are good vs. all armors and probably least effective vs. plate. No matter what armor you're wearing, you're going to feel the concussive force of a bludgeoning weapon when it hits you. According to my own research, chain mail is the worst protection vs. bludgeons. It won't do much to stop the concussive force and the chain would turn your skin into hamburger - which is why they wore padded or leather armors underneath chain. I find it interesting that bludgeons became very common after the fall of the Roman Empire and the ability to make plate armor was lost for a time. "Hey, they ain't wearing plate, so we'll just hit them with big, heavy sticks!" Bludgeons generally require less training to be used effectively. "Hit them with big, heavy sticks!"

That very minor disagreement aside, how would you implement these characteristics in a manner that isn't overly complex?

To be honest, I think the weapon damages or ranges themselves tend to reflect these characteristics. For example, Rapier(1d6) isn't gonna penetrate plate without some kind of modifier. Keep in mind that for a 2d6 damage roll, 7 will be average and results to either side of 7 will be less frequent.

No matter how you change the damages vs. armors, a tactically minded player is still going to choose a weapon based on the amount of average damage it can inflict. I wouldn't choose a Rapier if it did 1d6+3 versus padded, ring, and chain but 1d6 versus plate - not when I have the strength to wield a mace that does 1d6+2 versus all armors.

I do think the weapon damages need a little tweaking though. Take your broadsword vs. military pick for example. In my copy of the rules, broadsword is 2d6+2 and pick is 2d6+1. I would swap those damages. Then, "do i take the broadsword and a shield or do i take the pick and get extra point of damage"? Following from that, bastard sword becomes 2d6+2. Also, as previously stated, I would change the dagger damage to 1d3+1. There are other little 1 point adjustments I would make also.

I want to reiterate that I agree with your thoughts 99%. I'm not arguing against your thoughts. I just haven't seen an implementation that satisfies me more than the current damage ranges. You might be the genius that cracks the code and strikes the perfect balance of simplicity/complexity I'm looking for. Please share if you do!