Sword question - swing vs thrust

[Black Leviathan]

Around my table I find that swing attacks are typically used against foes with some armor as that extra point or two of damage makes a greater impact. Impaling attacks are generally for unarmored foes or attacks to the face when the face is unarmored. The idea being the impaling damage outstrips the extra few points of cutting damage.

Reach also has an impact on decision. Some swords have an extra hex on one attack but not the other. Rarely in narrow spaces thrusts work where swings don't.

[RyanW]

There are also cases where swings really should not work well, but the rules don't say anything about them. Cramped quarters, through the gaps of a shield wall*, between the bars of a portcullis, etc.

* In either direction, really. I could see a case for reducing the attack penalty for wielding a large shield when thrusting, for example.

[nudj]

So to sum up, it's best to use thrust only if:

1. The situation is too cramped or restricted for swinging

2. You are using rules from Low Tech that lower swing cutting damage for certain types of armor.

3. Facing very low DR opponents (although how low depends on ST and weapon) and probably targeting the vitals for x 3.

right?

[Gigermann]

Originally Posted by RyanW

There are also cases where swings really should not work well, but the rules don't say anything about them. Cramped quarters, through the gaps of a shield wall*, between the bars of a portcullis, etc.

"Fighting in Confined Spaces," GURPS Underground Adventures p.12 covers some of this, FWIW

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by nudj

So to sum up, it's best to use thrust only if:

1. The situation is too cramped or restricted for swinging

2. You are using rules from Low Tech that lower swing cutting damage for certain types of armor.

3. Facing very low DR opponents (although how low depends on ST and weapon) and probably targeting the vitals for x 3.

right?

You missed that when using a sword only its thrusting attack can target chinks (or gaps, if using that optional rule from LT) in armor.

There are a few other instances, but these are mostly edge cases. A stop thrust, as the name implies, is a thrusting attack. Not only can it increase damage when used against a charging foe, if your foe needs to get closer than the reach of your weapon they either have to back off and come from another direction (an option they probably have insufficient Move to pull off and still attack) or run themselves through, for automatic maximum damage (using their ST iirc) on your attack. Additionally, when you are charging, I believe thrust attacks are the only ones (via armed slams) that can use slam damage in place of ST-based damage, and when doing so I think the normal Move and Attack penalty is reduced (or maybe even doesn’t apply). Finally, you may come across foes who are particularly susceptible to impaling damage and/or particularly resistant to cutting, but outside of facing Kevlar-wearing soldiers with swords, the opposite (against unliving/homogeneous foes) is more likely.

[Boge]

I only thrust to the vitals, because damage for a thrust is less than a swing unless you go for the vitals. It gets worse at higher strengths. It's even worse when against armor. And it's even worse when you add in Weapon Mastery bonuses.

[Anthony]

A lot of the problem is that GURPS just defines mechanical effects of damage types wrong; it has impaling damage backwards. Impaling damage isn't just better than cutting at going through flesh, it's better at going through everything, it's just harder to connect with.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Anthony

A lot of the problem is that GURPS just defines mechanical effects of damage types wrong; it has impaling damage backwards. Impaling damage isn't just better than cutting at going through flesh, it's better at going through everything, it's just harder to connect with.

I’m not familiar with any source of DR that defends better against impaling damage than cutting (and quite a few that defend better against cutting than impaling, albeit typically only by a point or two), so I’m not certain what you mean by backwards here. Unless you’re specifically referring to GURPS having a sword’s impaling attack have generally worse penetration than its cutting, which is more a function of thr vs sw than imp vs cut. The optional armor penetration rules in LT go part of the way toward addressing this, but probably don’t go quite far enough.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I’m not familiar with any source of DR that defends better against impaling damage than cutting (and quite a few that defend better against cutting than impaling, albeit typically only by a point or two), so I’m not certain what you mean by backwards here.

Most cutting attacks are assigned higher basic damage than impaling attacks, but the general point is impaling shouldn't just incrase wounding, it should increase both penetration and wounding.

Originally Posted by Varyon

The optional armor penetration rules in LT go part of the way toward addressing this, but probably don’t go quite far enough.

I'd probably just say 'Cutting: (0.5) armor divisor, (2) wounding modifier'.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I’m not familiar with any source of DR that defends better against impaling damage than cutting (and quite a few that defend better against cutting than impaling, albeit typically only by a point or two), so I’m not certain what you mean by backwards here. Unless you’re specifically referring to GURPS having a sword’s impaling attack have generally worse penetration than its cutting, which is more a function of thr vs sw than imp vs cut. The optional armor penetration rules in LT go part of the way toward addressing this, but probably don’t go quite far enough.

I think what Anthony is saying is that impaling increases the damage on the back end, after penetration, but it should probably increase penetration over-all.

This combiens with the nature of gurps DR vs ST based damage and produces the unrealistic result that thrusts are only useful at low ST scores and against unarmored opponents, while for those with ST12 or higher, swinging is the best way to get through armor.

Targeting the chinks in armor is irrelevant, because the vast skill penalty for the attack places it out of regular use in combat for anyone but the superlatively skilled, and if your opponent has any vulnerable unarmored body parts such as feet, hands or the face, you're better off just attacking there. And then you do more injury with a swinging cutting weapon than a thrust impaling weapon.

It's a significant problem that leads to various patchwork efforts to restore "realism", such as edge protection. Edge Protection goes a long way towards sharply reducing the effectiveness of cutting, but runs into the high strength problem as well.

I've got a fix, one I borrowed from DanHoward. :D