10-22-2017, 03:21 PM | #21 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Are swords worth it?
Roman infantry swords, whether the gladius or the later spatha, are very similar in design and usage to later period infantry swords. Iconic hangers like the katzbalger are very similar to the gladius, and it isn't just the fetishization of Rome, this design is useful as a secondary weapon for close quarters combat. In all cases the soldiers' primary arm was something else, a spear, pike, polearm, two-handed sword, bow, crossbow, or firearm, depending. A lot of variety in the primary weapon, but very little in the design of a sword that must be carried out-of-the-way, on the march, and is good in close quarters.
|
10-22-2017, 03:24 PM | #22 |
Join Date: Mar 2013
|
Re: Are swords worth it?
Swords are more expensive than axes and spears in GURPS because they were (and are) more expensive to make than axes and spears.
I don't think this needs to be changed for game balance reasons. Warriors with limited budgets should use spears or axes, not expensive broadswords. That said if you want swords to proliferate, go ahead and make them cheaper, it's your campaign. Maybe smithing has become more of an automated process, with large workshops with many artisans, water powered trip hammer or magic to speed things up. In this scenario, whatever is widely sold will be cheaper, so maybe swords and certain types of armour. Maybe the country you are in has conducted years of successful warfare and looted swords are common. Cheap swords are available to anyone who wants one and Good quality ones go for $100 a pop, as long as you know enough to spot the difference amongst all the dross. If you just really like swords as flavour, you could do other things, like make the Cool Ethnic Euro weapons. So treat them as one Quality level higher for the same cost or are +1 to hit or +1 to damage because they are just that good. |
10-22-2017, 06:03 PM | #23 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
Re: Are swords worth it?
What might be a good idea in this debate, is to compare some of the things that can or can not be done with weapon types and damage types. At present, I'm hunting down a reference I seem to recall (but want to find the specific reference and page number!) - but as I find them, I'll list the page references and book references as well...
Thrust based weapons versus swing based weapons (Aka Spear versus edged weapons): "Only crushing and cutting attacks can cause knockback." GURPS BASIC Set Campaigns, pg 378 box. (this was the reference I was looking for) Thrust based weapons versus limb attacks lose their damage multiplier: "Against a living target, reduce the wounding multiplier of large piercing, huge piercing, and impaling damage to x1" GURPS BASIC SET campaigns, page 399 Ditto with hand/feet hits as far as limb hits go. There may be other things to include in this list, and I'll let some other eagle eyed individual add to it rather than exhaust the list myself. ;) |
10-22-2017, 06:17 PM | #24 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Are swords worth it?
Only impaling and piercing can target vitals or eyes. Cutting is pretty good on any location (so random location with cutting is usually worth it assuming armor is equivalent on all locations). The edged weapons blunt trauma optional rule only effects cutting weapons.
|
10-22-2017, 06:50 PM | #25 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
Re: Are swords worth it?
This is a "meta-game" reason to favor swords over axes, but that's something that you'd need to pay attention to, especially if you have any students of math in your gaming crew...
Statistically speaking, who do you think will win where you have one individual who can attack twice as often as the other? The odds are calculable easily enough. Let's suppose for the sake of this example, we have two identical warriors in the sense that they have the same stats, but chose two different primary weapons in addition to their medium shield for this combat (no armor etc)? Both have a move of 5, which means that their Dodge stat is 5+3+2 (defensive bonus) or 10 Both have a shield skill of 12, so their block is 12/2 + 3 + 2 (DB) or 11 Both have a primary weapon skill of 12, so their parry is 12/2 +3 +2 or 11 So far, so good. What are the odds that two consecutive attempts for either of an attack or defense roll will succeed? The value is Odds of Success^N where N is the number of trials (die rolls). So, when using the odds of vs a 12 on 3d6, it works out to .741^2 or 54.9% of the time. The odds of two successive attempts at Blocking with a base target value of 11 on 3d6 is .625^2 or .39%. So, 54.9% of the time when a swordsman has two successful sword attacks, the ax wielding warrior only has a 39% chance of blocking BOTH attacks, and consequently, a 61% chance that at least ONE will get through. What are the odds that at least ONE of the swordsman's attacks will succeed out of two attempts? Odds of Failure^N. So, the odds of failure for a skill 12 is 1-.741^N (where N is 2), or .067 or 6.7% that both attacks fail, and 1-6.7% chance at at least ONE will hit (in this case, 93.3%). So, a swordsman, attacking twice in 2 seconds, has a 93.3% chance of securing a single hit with a skill of 12, versus the ax wielding fighter having only a 74.1% chance of securing a hit in 2 seconds. The swordsman only has to defend against one hit in two seconds, so the odds that he will defend successfully against the ax attack is 74.1% Contrast this against the axman's worst case scenario in 2 seconds of having to defend against two attacks with only a 39% chance against both. In short? Statisically speaking, the ax wielder does suffer significant disadvantages versus the Swordsman. Someone should check my math to be sure (as I do make mistakes and am working off math from my distant past some 20+ years ago, but I think these are correct). |
10-22-2017, 07:03 PM | #26 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Are swords worth it?
Why would the axeman not be able to attack every turn? He can't parry if he does, but that is why he has a shield.
|
10-22-2017, 07:17 PM | #27 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
Re: Are swords worth it?
Quote:
I had forgotten that Axes in 4e were changed from axes in 3e. Should have looked THAT up before posting it above. Goes to show how often as GM, I use Ax wielding opponents against my players. ;) I tend to use either spear opponents, or swords - and rarely do I run them in formation fighting (although I did that once with the Roman campaign). But yes, the Ax could attack, and use his weapon the next turn per GURPS 4e rules. Dang, missed it by THAT much (in a Don Adams voice) |
|
10-22-2017, 08:08 PM | #28 | |
Join Date: Jun 2017
|
Re: Are swords worth it?
Quote:
Also I don't know if there are any rules for it in 4e, but thrusting weapons should much more effective underwater. |
|
10-22-2017, 08:53 PM | #29 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: Are swords worth it?
Spears can be swung like staffs which I'd imagine would work better against cliched brittle skeletons than swords.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
10-22-2017, 09:51 PM | #30 |
Ceci n'est pas une tag.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver, WA (Portland Metro)
|
Re: Are swords worth it?
That's actually kind of cool. :-) May have plane shifting abilities, too.
__________________
I'm a collector, not a gamer. =) |
Tags |
comparisons, cost, melee weapons |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|