Up in arms hand weapon, the Hack quality

[Default]

Having played a while and realising how important armor points are against critical hits I think that the hand weapons with Hack listed in UiA are superior to those with out. Take an axe. It has Hack and unbalanced. So if you use a shield for party there is no downside to getting Hack.
So why would you use a sword? Any thoughts on that ?

[SerBeavington]

You are correct, this is definitely a bit weird - if you defend with a shield, unbalanced isn't an issue, so both axes and maces are objectively better than swords: They do the same damage, cost less money and have either the hack or pummel quality, while the sword has none. So the sword is the objectively worse.

I could imagine several ways how it could be modified to balance this a bit, but every approach has drawbacks and complicates things. To keep it simple: Maybe this is just a case where a rather specific play style benefits from certain weapons and it is simply better to use an axe or mace when you are planning to defend with your offhand weapon and melee(parry).

[Hyarion]

RAW, yes, it seems that Axes are better.

But don't overlook the social cost of an axe. For one, Axes cannot be sheathed making them unsuitable as part of a ceremonial uniform (Exhibit A: The US Marines dress uniform). Also, axes are a martial adaptation of a tool, swords are purely martial and therefore represent the financial freedom to be dedicated full time to a warrior's training, placing you closer to the nobility than the common people. While those things are not represented in the rules, I would argue they are present never the less. It just requires a small amount of work on the GM's part.

[SerBeavington]

RAW, yes, it seems that Axes are better.

But don't overlook the social cost of an axe. For one, Axes cannot be sheathed making them unsuitable as part of a ceremonial uniform (Exhibit A: The US Marines dress uniform). Also, axes are a martial adaptation of a tool, swords are purely martial and therefore represent the financial freedom to be dedicated full time to a warrior's training, placing you closer to the nobility than the common people. While those things are not represented in the rules, I would argue they are present never the less. It just requires a small amount of work on the GM's part.

I really like this answer and realise I thought about this way too "gamey". That makes a lot of sense and could be broadly tied to one's social status - while in Brass Tier it might feel okay to use something like an axe instead of a sword, for for a warrior in Gold Tier on the other hand it could even feel inappropriate to "only" have a simple sword (like every up-jumped hedge knight), and they would want it to be at least in the fine quality. But, if a player really wants to use some kind of one-handed war axe, it can be up to the DM to let them buy or craft one that does not feel cheap or unworthy of their status, that could be also represented with the fine quality and much higher cost.


This might be as good a place as any to ask, don't want to make a new thread for it: Is it just me or are the stats of some weapons very different from what you would expect? I especially stumbled on the Quarterstaff, which is just a long piece of hard wood. It still does the same damage as the most other polearm weapons, +SB+4, which is the same damage a spear or halberd does. I find it really difficult to imagine that getting hit by a long stick does ies the same damage as being hit with a long stick that has a sharp metal axe attached to its end.

Since most polearms with sharp metal ends make +SB+4 damage, I would have rather expected the Quarterstaff to do +SB+2 damage, this would also fit with it being extremely cheap, comparatively easy to craft by your character if you are in an wooded environment, and also having the defensive quality. Does someone has a good explanation for this? A sturdy piece of wood doing the same damage as a halberd (or even a sword) just feels out of place to me.

[Hyarion]

I see your point about Weapon Damage (full disclosure, I don't have Up In Arms so things might have been updated). I would argue that the difference lies in the weapon qualities. Especially a Halberd's Penetrate quality which means that it will always be doing more damage (SL's being equal) to armored foes.

Looking at the weapon qualities, I think it does a passable job of reflecting the historical usage of a halberd. It was used as a half-pike/quarter staff to trip an armored foe and then chop at them while they were on the ground. Could it maybe stand to be SB+5? Sure, but I think it's fine as is.

At the end of the day, most of your damage is going to be coming from SL's anyways, not pure mathematical adders. And that, I think, is as it should be.