Has anyone expanded the weapon lists available in the Core book? Do any of the supplements expand on these weapons?

I know that Hand Weapons and Great Weapons are classes of weapons from past editions of WHFRP, but I never liked these broad categories for weapons so commonly used by adventurerers. We have 4 (iirc) types of firearms, two knives, two pulled bows, etc. But, a mace, hand axe, small battle axe, club, short sword, pick, broad sword, long sword, and perhaps a hand-and-a-half sword are all lumped togather.

If no one has expanded on these classes I might give it a try. If so, anyone intersted with what I may come up with? My notes might add a couple new weapon abilities to more further differentiate weapons so they aren't just different by name, (a.i. Blunt X, opposite of Pierce X, for a Mace or Club), but I will try to keep it very simple. No changes to the canon rule system, just an expansion.

Tentative new Hand Weapon types (remove the old category): Long Sword (includes broadsword, longsword, etc), Small Sword (gladius, short sword, etc), Mace, Pick, Club, and Axe.

Tentative new Great Weapon types (remove the old category): Great Hammer, Claymore, Great Axe

Sounds like fun. I'd love to see what you come up with.

Just to explain where I think the categories come from, hand weapons and great weapons come from the Warhammer Fantsy Battles game where most one-handed weapons are lumped into the category of hand weapons and most 2h weapons are lumped into the great weapon category.
Most (or all) of the ranged weapons are also just taken from the battles game. In the battles game the spears, flails, etc. also get some special attention, just as in WFRP. So I guess in a way they are staying "true" to the battles game, all the while keeping it simple to use.

This was addressed to some extent in the previous edition. At normal quality, each was just a generic Hand Weapon, however at superior quality they became more than that. Each weapon type gained a keyword trait as a byproduct of superior craftsmanship. Something like bonus parry on a sword, increased crit with an axe, boost to stun with mace and ilk. Would be easy enough to carry that forward without adding more complexity to the table.

I'd work with the item-cards as they are (Greatsword of Hoeth for example),
and give them possible lines for boons

eg. rapier: must be used with agility; 1 boon: pierce 2; 2 boon: ignore armour;

And when making an attack, players combine an action card with a weapon-card
Possibly even make double-sided cards for different uses of the weapon.

eg.

Sword: slash effect: as action card
Sword: thrust effect: as action card, add 1 black die, but gain: 2boon: Pierce:2

I like the idea of the Boons being different by weapon type, but already came up with enough differentiation just by looking at the weapon tables.

I have something to post, but am afraid I would be obtaining the wrath of the FFG Gods if I posted my table as is. It is a copy of the weapon table in the Core book with my changes and additions.

I may have to go through and blank out anything that has stayed the same and only leave my added weapons plus notes on the very few changes (3) I made to the canon weapons.

I put my notes on my weapon houserules in a 2 page PDF here .

Note: I really like Nisses' idea of adding boons/banes for individual weapons to Item weapon cards, but my changes above also worked out well for me. Plus, I would have to make a ton of mundane weapon Item cards of my own first (using Strange Eons) to use Nisses' idea. I may do so down the road, but I don't think it will change what I did in the document above.

I'm under the impression sword was such a favored weapon because larger once could be easily used to block strikes and smaller once were quick and could be used to stab below the shield.

I actually like the idea of picking a quality specific to a weapon and just adding it for superior quality weapons.

Axe:Vicious

Sword:Fast

Pick: Peirce 1

Can't think of anything for Hammers and Maces offhand, but there's options there too. Better quality weapons would also likely be made to measure, so there's that to consider aswell.

Simply put, it is worthwhile coming up with individual rules, but only when your making your PC's work for their shiny new gear.

Swords stop being a favoured weapon in many armies when plate mail kicks in. Ironically, thus began the age of the warhammer,(and the equally popular warpick) in most cases line infantry would have been armed with a short sword, as it had a no nonense stab-and-yank approach, and didn't require the sort of training required by a sword.

has not been tested yet but seems simple and holds the flavour

name dam/crit qualities

basic handweapon 5/3

sword 5/3 balanced

axe 5/3 vicious

pick 4/3 pierce (2)

hammer 5/4 pummeling

club 4/4 blunt

balanced:

when used to parry add one more misfourtune die( so parry with weapon skill trained and a sword adds 3 misfourtune really helps the sword and board characters)

edit: note this is diferent to Main G defensive as it can be used in the main hand(nice GMs or high levels players may like to combine them for super florentine wall of steal. advanced parry with sword and Main G would add one challange and 2 misfortune meaning riptose would be usefull yay

vicious:

as in book so axe gets better crits

pierce:

as in book. one point less damage for 2 points of armour reduction means the pick does do more damage to armoured enemies.

pummeling:

weapon gains 2(boon): give the staggered condition for one round( one stance closer to neutral and + recharge token to an active defense)

edit: just found that this would disrupte disorienting strike's reckless side a bit. though it might just make it better if 3 sucs and 2 boons were rolled the player could double stagger moving stance twice and adding 2 takens to defenses so it is not that game breaking

(side note what happens when staggered is extended for a round as the effects are instant)

blunt:

oposite of vicious. if crit occurs take 2 cards and use the lowest ratting(gm choice)

for great weapons just do the same as normal weapons but using 7/2 as the standard damage

great pick would have -1 damage for 6/2 and peirce 2(dont think these where ever created or used)

great hammer would have +1 crit ratting for 7/3 and pummel

pick may unbalance things as all our enemies seem to have some armour. maybe chaos star: add more rechargetokens as pick gets stuck in enemy. would balance it out maybe even 3 damage 3 pierce but that makes it worse than a club against someone with no armour. though seeing it was the intended purpose of the weapon and the other weapons have there qualities aswell maybe it does not create a issue

these rules break flail (7/3 vicious slow) as great axe would be the same but better crit and no slow(7/2 vicious)

to fix this i think morning star and flail should get chain(flexiable): (removing morning stars current one as that is what the hammer is for)

against the parry or block active defenses remove one misfourtune as your weapon wraps around the targets defense

and

dagger 4/3 fast

main G 4/4 fast, defensive as in book, now can be paired with sword to create super wall of steal

stiletto 4/3 fast, pierce so 5 damage to armour

kris 4/2 fast, good for crits

unarmed 3/4 fast. blunt same reason as sturn it should have fast. blunt aswell

guant/knuckle Ds 4/4 blunt still better than an improvised weapon

I think the idea behind the generalization of weapons is that its assumed that if the designer gives you the various quality types of weapons, gives you a generic base for weapons than you have everything you need to make any specific weapon unique. By defining all "swords" as fast for example or all axes as "vicious" what you are doing is expanding more on generics which is really kind of oppossed to what the system is trying to be, which is dynamic.

For example, why can't a Axe be fast? Why can't a sword be vicious? Are all one handed swords in the world fast?

The basic problem here is again (something I preach often), trying to create realism through manipulation or adjustment of the mechanic so that is simulates it. The result is usually a more stagnet world where things when analyzed become less realisitic than they where when it was more generic.

I would suggest handling this is a less pre-defined and more dynamic way.

For example a sword picked off a rat-man, might be lighter, sharp on both ends with a slight curve. I would rule this sword to be fast for certain. However a sword picked off a Beastmen, might have crude chips in it, giving a variety of jagged edges, but its heavier and less balanced. I might rule this sword to be vicious.

I think its more important that we focus on the narrative and detailed aspects of the game worlds equipment which should provide a better base for realism and the true diversity of weapons in the world, rather than trying to create a more detailed, but static, system of all X weapons having X qualities.. As such however the base balacing of the CR and DR of a hand weapon is a good starting point for normal (non-magical weapons). Small manipulations might be ok but I would be weary of creating hand weapons for example with a DR of 7 or 8.

So play with the story of each weapon as it comes up. I think this creates more realism than a static system and the nice thing is that WFRP has already provided you with different types of qualities like fast, vicious… all rules already tested to work within the system.

I think the point here being, don't go backwards in design, go forward. WFRP has broken many molds and I find that there is a desdency of many WFRP players with D&D backgrounds and other systems in which the thinking is always in the form of "pre-create static rules", because this is how all role-playing games in the past have done it, so its something we are accustomed to seeing. WFRP however is not an RPG of the past, it is one of the present and dynamics is the one thing this game has that most others don't. Altering in the way you guys are talking about is basically a sort of "D&Dish" static system of the past.

while never having played D&D i do understand what you are pointing at. pretty much static rules(as you put it) to allow players to create their ultimate killers rather than players and GMs to create fitting weapons of adversaries and those you may actually find in your setting.

it is true that each weapon could and would exibit each of these traits depending on the style and background of the weapon but the qualities are meant more for the generic run of the mill empire weapon found in the setting my group plays.( most of the combat i have seen is against beastman and i would not want to even touch those weapons so il leave it to the GM as to what they will do).

i also tried to use second ED in making these rules where the qualities only come out in better quality versions of the weapon. but i still do find that tring to use the table top version of a hand weapon is a hand weapon a little lacking in a rpg (we use 2nd ed armoury and prices to bring a little varity. but it still is a little staple in the weapon department)