Siangham? Urgrosh?

Shin Okada

Explorer
Hi guys! There are 2 weapons in 3e, which members of my play group cannot identify the nature or them. One is Siangham, another one is Urgrosh (Dwarven). Are those weapons really exist on our earth or created by authors for 3e? We are guessing that Siangham is a chinese or otherwise an asian weapon and Urgrosh is a coined word. But anyway, non of my friends (including practitioners of various Japanese and Chinese martial arts) can identify this weapon. Would someone know anything about those weapons?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Neowolf

First Post
The siangham is indeed an Asian weapon of some sort, though I'm not sure which martial arts tradition uses it. It's a sort of "punching dagger"; it looks something like a set of brass knuckles with a knife blade pointing out.

As far as I know, the Urgrosh is a made up weapon. If I'm not mistaken there's a picture of it in the equipment chapter of the PHB.
 

MutantHamster

First Post
Originally posted by Shin Okada
Are those weapons really exist on our earth or created by authors for 3e?

I don't Know if those weapons Are Exist on this planet




Neowolf: Know, you are thinking of the Katar (wich is really chinese). A siangham is like a little stick with a blade on the end.
 


alsih2o

First Post
research from my party showed a siangham is an arrow with its fletchings wrapped, making it a melee weapon....


the urgrosh is just a longhalndled axe with a pointy end opposite the blade head
 



hong

WotC's bitch
rounser said:

Popular in the SCA.
Unpopular with those who enjoy suspension of disbelief.

So what you're saying is that because real-life examples exist, there's nothing to disbelieve, so those who want to suspend disbelief get annoyed?
 

rounser

First Post
So what you're saying is that because real-life examples exist, there's nothing to disbelieve, so those who want to suspend disbelief get annoyed?
Hong, I see you're one of the arguers from the "there are obscure examples of monks using shields in the real world, therefore, all the monks should use the shields in teh game and there is no flavour problems to ruin teh fun! Huzzah!" perspective people.

There are probably rare historical incidences of people going into medieval battle armed with a brick-in-a-sock, but that doesn't mean we need it in the PHB statted as a "Troglodyte Whack-Bonk" requiring an exotic weapon proficiency to use. Note that I only don't consider it welcome in the core books - setting specific weapons such as Dark Sun's wristrazors or Dragonlance's clabbard are fine in the context of their setting - just leave them out of the PHB.

Even if the odd real life example exists, in real combat, the weapon is probably inferior to a real axe and potentially harmful to the user, as are most of the double-weapons - otherwise "urgroshes" would probably have been in common use. "Urgroshes" are as popular as they are in the SCA because certain artifacts of the SCA combat simulation rules make them effective. The medieval weaponsmiths were not fools, and such weapons seem a mockery of medieval weapon technology - which is what most of the D&D weapons are based on. (Notable exception: Some oriental martial arts weapons, but they were often not used by choice.)

You may say that spending an exotic weapon proficiency makes up the deficit in the weapon's inefficiency, but I'd rather they'd never made it into the core books at all, or were saved for hokey splatbooks, where they can be more easily ignored.

Yes, I do have greater verisimilitude problems with an orcish double-axe than I do with a wizard casting a fireball, or a flying dragon - because at least the latter are floating on genre assumption. There are grey boundaries too - I have no problem with claw bracers and spiked boots from the FRCS, nor do I have any problems with the Kyton flailing quite effectively with spiked chains - but orcish double-axes, urgroshes and non-Kyton wielded spiked chains deliver "what a stupid weapon" suspension of disbelief problems. Given discussions around the game table, I'm not the only one.
 
Last edited:

Celebrim

Legend
"Yes, I do have greater verisimilitude problems with an orcish double-axe than I do with a wizard casting a fireball, or a flying dragon - because at least the latter are floating on genre assumption. There are grey boundaries too - I have no problem with claw bracers and spiked boots from the FRCS, nor do I have any problems with the Kyton flailing quite effectively with spiked chains - but orcish double-axes, urgroshes and non-Kyton wielded spiked chains deliver "what a stupid weapon" suspension of disbelief problems. Given discussions around the game table, I'm not the only one."

Amen, Brother. Preach on.

This sort of thing is clearly the result of game designers who have never actually wielded melee weapons. In my own game, I try to elimenate the above weapons as much as possible. Some suggestions....

Simply rule that certain really unusable and intellectually offensive weapons (double sword, urgosh, orcish double axe(!), dire flail(!!), gnomish axe(!!!)) do not exist, AND/OR...

Double weapons (other than the quarterstaff, but including the spiked chain) have an increased fumble range (1-2 or even 1-3, rather than just 1). This takes into account that someone using (for instance) a double sword has a pretty good chance of cutting thier own legs off, especially when the opponent strikes the blade heavily.

Realistic weapons have thier weights reduced to a realistic range. Double weapons do not.

Urgoshes may not be weilded as a double weapon, but you can switch between weapon ends from round to round.

Chains (spiked or not) cannot be used together with Expertise feat or the fight defensively manuever. (They make really poor parrying weapons, and protecting oneself with them is more a matter of making increased offensive threat and forcing your opponent to take a defensive manuever than anything you can do to protect yourself directly.)
 

Remove ads

Top