[electrum]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

You'll still do better with a mace against mail though.
OK quick set up: ST10 3lb Broadsword (1d+1 cut) and ST10 3lb small Mace (1d+2 cr)

Both vs. DR5 mail


The sword on average does 4.5 and won't beat the mail

The mace on average does 5.5 but the mail is only DR3 vs. Cr so will actually do damage on average.

I see. Your post combined with the very extensive post (which I won't quote here) by Curmudgeon really changed how I saw melee. That does considerably change things.
We won't need it since we're TL2 (and I don't think we're going to encounter lorica segmentata-type armor, either, but what are the recommended rules for making combat against soldiers wearing this armor doable? I suppose integrate the "chinks in the armor" rules, right? What else could be done?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Mook rules are pretty common, and to be fair they are designed towards your PCs hitting often and ending fights quickly, which is what this chap seem's to be doing.

The corollary is the GURPS combat system also gives various ways to fight defensively. Should you ever want to draw your combats out give your mooks big DB3 shields, and the shield wall training perk.

I'm really fond of the idea of giving the mooks big shields. I definitely think it would encourage tactical thinking and increase the overall lethality of combat. I'm not trying to get my PCs killed, just make them less gung-ho about charging in with 75 character points toward armed palace guards, you know?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Sorry I'm not quite sure what you are asking. There are rules for damaging shields pg 484 & 287 (and cloaks pg 484 & 184).


But you seem to be talking about using a cloak and shield at the same time (which I guess you could do one in either hand, I'd allow the defender to chose which took the potential damage in the case it came up)?

Oh I see. I did not realize that a cloak was a wielded weapon. It just didn't seem obvious. That was due to the fact that I never really understood what "cloak and dagger" really looked like as a fighting style. A little bit of research and looking at manuals has cleared that up.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Swung crushing weapons do lots of damage, which is how they defeat rigid armor. Blunt trauma is mostly irrelevant against humans in historical armor. It's more likely to matter if you let people have some kind of ultratech flexible armor which somehow still has lots of DR vs crushing damage.

It's clear now that blunt trauma only applies in that kind of situation. The manuals don't make that very obvious, though. I know they did it for the sake of brevity, but without knowledge of those ballistic vest-type armors it did make the rule seem strange.

Originally Posted by Varyon

However, I should note that, unless using a barbed head, thrust impaling weapons don't get stuck like swing impaling weapons do - the default assumption for a spear strike is that you stab and withdraw (leaving your weapon free to Parry incoming attacks). If the character opts to use a barbed head (which makes thrust impaling attacks get stuck just like swing impaling ones do), keep in mind that while his spear is in his foe's gut, it's going to be extremely awkward - if not outright impossible - to Parry with it, and he can't Retreat without abandoning his weapon.

I'll take the advice that he has to explicitly leave his spear there. But I think he'll be tempted to continue to leave the spear in, because it's our common-sense style of play that the guy is probably stunned from the hit (usually he's dealing 4-8 damage per strike) or at least at a massive disadvantage, and the PCs gang up on this guy and get him. Do you think an impaled enemy would be more capable of retaliating, even with the spear still lodged in his gut?

Originally Posted by Polydamas

GURPS combat is not particularly realistic, but it gives ordinary people a way to resolve a wide variety of situations, and it makes it possible to translate between everyday language and GURPS jargon in a straightforward way. It does not create those issues of "you hit him with your blaster pistol, but not hit-hit, just inflicted Hit Points of damage" which more abstract systems create.

Styles which prefer to keep a hand and weapon forward are likely to get the Fencing bonuses to defence.

How do you think it should be taken then, if a PC just says "oh yeah well my guy's no idiot, of course he's going to take a fencing stance"? AFAIK there's no specific skill I can require. I don't like to just say "narratively, your guy is a pirate, not a fencer. He's not trained as a fencer and has no reason to know this. You can't do it"

And as for the former, that's how I've been dealing with it so far. It sometimes feels muddy and "hacked together" when we do it that way, like we're missing an aspect of how it would really turn out.

This thread has so far made it clear that I need to read the whole of low-tech, at least!