Rescaling Melee Weapons (notes)

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

Giving specific multipliers also increases granularity, Making possible to, let's say, giving a katana a smaller loss in thrust than a scimitar would get.

Oh, sure! If I were starting from scratch, I'd use a formula like the one online for determining the speed of a golf-club head to figure out how the lever arm and weight distribution multiplies the impact energy for any given weapon. for now, is all I have to go with are the canonical values found in the rules, so I go with that.

[gilbertocarlos]

We should lobby for a version like that so the 5th edition will have that(even though it will be only around 2030+).

[Mathulhu]

I you write it they will come.

[gilbertocarlos]

Originally Posted by Mathulhu

I you write it they will come.

Do you speak english?

[zoncxs]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

Do you speak english?

He forgot the f lmao

[Vynticator]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

Do you speak english?

Or English, even, if we're being picky... ;)

[Kallatari]

Myself I use +8 ST gives +1d, or rather each +2 ST gives +1 to damage, which I covert at +1 = +1, +2 = +2, +3 = +1d-1, and +4 = +1d. (Actually, each +1 ST gives +0.5 damage, which may affect the damage of some weapons that also have fractional damage bonuses...)

I don't distinguish between thrust or swing by ST, because I use completely different (and overly complicated) rules to determine the velocity of the weapon, determine damage as if it were a collision, which determines the weapon's base damage. Then add the bonus to the damage based on ST (as defined above, with ST 10 being +0) to represent "powering through the impact."

Is it realistic.. not sure. But it gives results I like, that are close enough to GURPS RAW (at the ST 8 to 12 range, anyway), and allows me to unify the throwing, collision, falling, and damage rules all into one single rule.

And yes, my rules are complicated...I wouldn't use them myself if I didn't have them in a spreadsheet or Map Tools macros. ;)

[Mr Frost]

Using [Str x {1+(Weapon Damage/3)}]/10 DouglasCole suggests however throws the system wildly out of kilter when weapons with large material and magic bonuses and/or rescaled for size modifyer {Low Tech Companion 2 page 20-21} are available as the damage can readily end up exceeding R.A.W. .

Example 1: Str 12 with a Great Sword [Very Fine , +3 Puissance]

Raw > Swing = Str 1d+2 +3 {weapon} +2 {quality} +3 {magic} = 1d+10 = 4d-1
DouglasCole > Swing [Str 12 x {1+(3+2+3=8/3)}]/10 = 4.4d = 4d+1

Example 2: Str 20 SM1 giant with giant SM1 pollaxe

Raw > Swing = Str 3d+2 +6{weapon} = 3d+8 = 5d+1
DouglasCole > Swing = [Str 20 x {1+(6/3)}]/10 = 6d


This gets much worse with giant magic weapons of quality .





I suggest using instead the weapon stats {incl quality and magic etc} times 3 as + Str then divide by 10 {Swing} or 20 {Thrust} .

In those above examples the Str 12 Great Sword does [12+({3+2+3}x3)]/10 = 3.6d = 3d+2 and the Giant with SM1 Pollaxe [20+(6x3)]/10 = 3.8d = 4d-1 .

This is also easier maths for those with an aversion to such {or a phobia vs calculators ;p} .

[JP42]

Originally Posted by Mr Frost

Using [Str x {1+(Weapon Damage/3)}]/10 DouglasCole suggests however throws the system wildly out of kilter when weapons with large material and magic bonuses and/or rescaled for size modifyer {Low Tech Companion 2 page 20-21} are available as the damage can readily end up exceeding R.A.W.

I took this very issue up in the comments over on Doug's blog. A normal guy with the min strength to wield a Gada (swing + 6) winds up doing 4.8d instead of the GURPS standard 4d. Using .25 instead of .33 helps bring that instance down to 4d again, but start scaling up the SM and adding enchantments, and you'd probably quickly exceed the standard rules again.

I like your idea of ((weapon bonus * 3) + ST)/10 (or 20 for thrusting) and will definitely take that under consideration.

[coyote6]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

We should lobby for a version like that so the 5th edition will have that(even though it will be only around 2030+).

FWIW, I'd vote against it, unless you're talking about a completely redesigned system, different from the ground up, so that increased realism doesn't mean increased difficulty in actually playing.