Realism; Strength is not important for swordsmanship(?)

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by aesir23

Agreed. However, there's a reason why weight classes are essential to all forms of full-contact unarmed martial arts (striking or grappling) but not to fencing.

I study unarmed martial artsts (including unarmed HEMA) as well as sword-fighting and I can tell you, without hestation, that I can win a swordfight against a much stronger opponent if I'm just a little more skilled. But I'd need to be a lot more skilled to win a boxing match against a stronger opponent and even more skilled to win a wrestling match against a stronger opponent.

You do need strength to use a weapon correctly, and there are ways to use superior strength to you advantage, but in many ways, weapons are a great equalizer.

That's right. You make me have doubts about what I answered to Simply Nathan. He finally may be right.

As I wrote it, I'm not at all an weapon expert. Just a budo novice. And, to be honest, I'm not even a karate expert. Just much more trained than with budo. So, as I said it, what I wrote above was just a feeling, not a firm conviction ... And it is now vanishing.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Gerrard of Titan Server

And I think it's fair to say that "practice with a longbow (of a large draw weight)" counts as strength training. A very particular form of strength training, but definitely strength training.

True, but I think that once you get to such precise training it becomes Bow training that might have some knock on benefits to wider applications of strength, instead of strength training that have positive effects on bow use.

Originally Posted by aesir23

Agreed. However, there's a reason why weight classes are essential to all forms of full-contact unarmed martial arts (striking or grappling) but not to fencing.

True but that's because fencing doesn't require you to hit hard, where as hitting harder directly increases your chances of winning in boxing et al.

i.e fencing matches is decided by skill speed and accuracy, I just have to make contact for long enough to get the light to go on. But if I get in the ring and knock the other chap out with one punch it doesn't matter how many times he's hit me I still win by KO.

and as they say a good big guy will beat good little guy, it's just they say it in the boxing ring not the fencing piste.

Originally Posted by aesir23

I study unarmed martial artsts (including unarmed HEMA) as well as sword-fighting and I can tell you, without hestation, that I can win a swordfight against a much stronger opponent if I'm just a little more skilled. But I'd need to be a lot more skilled to win a boxing match against a stronger opponent and even more skilled to win a wrestling match against a stronger opponent.

You do need strength to use a weapon correctly, and there are ways to use superior strength to you advantage, but in many ways, weapons are a great equalizer.

Yep I think this is basically true, weapons might well be called a force multiplier, but a lot of that comes with the addition of the weapon.

So if nothing else when its unarmed combat there less places for a physical deficient between combatant to be compensated for by equipment.

I.e A much wider range of people will be physically capable of thrusting a sword into someone chest thus ending a fight. It takes rather a lot more raw strength (and thus narrow range of people) to hit someone hard enough to get the same expectation of result. But yes of course skill overlays the likelihood of all this as well in actual fights.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Hellboy

...

Damage caps would also result in this. Daggers are an example, once you reach a certain level of damage from ST, more ST doesn't help it do more damage.

Realistically you should have that for all weapons but the caps should be much higher, perhaps unreachable in normal human strength ranges.

Just quickly that's what the 3x MinSt rule is about.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Hellboy

Could all of this be resolved by buying specific strength sub-advantages with limitations for specific weapons?

Not sure of the amounts but something like...

Striking ST (-10% sword-only)

Lifting ST (-10% knocking bow only)

Then it could basically reflect these lower-strength guys who learn to do more damage with technique but who are otherwise not strong.

Or it could reflect guys who don't do a lot of "generic" building exercises but still train a lot with their weapon (or their makiwara, for karate, or their punching bag) and, so, can hit very hard.

This is a very elegant solution.

[Tomsdad]

One thing to think about when it comes to deciding how to add skill based bonuses to weapon damage.

Weapons can already add to damage in up to three ways:

1). just the basic damage mod like the +1 or +2 etc you see in the listings (remember that most unarmed attacks are at negative damage mod)

2). the ability to access Sw damage which is normally very limited in unarmed attacks

3). Injury mod e.g. x1.5 for Cut

I.e there are already a lot of in built damage advantages to weapons already (as it should be)


So a ST10 chap who punches at 1d-3 Thr cr, (average 0 injury!) is already doing 1d+1 Sw Cut with broad sword (average 6 injury)

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Hellboy

Could all of this be resolved by buying specific strength sub-advantages with limitations for specific weapons?

Not sure of the amounts but something like...

Striking ST (-10% sword-only)

Lifting ST (-10% knocking bow only)

Then it could basically reflect these lower-strength guys who learn to do more damage with technique but who are otherwise not strong.

Maybe also some skill which allows one to take strike penalties to do more damage, in which case the DX for striking would benefit higher damage.

Damage caps would also result in this. Daggers are an example, once you reach a certain level of damage from ST, more ST doesn't help it do more damage.

Realistically you should have that for all weapons but the caps should be much higher, perhaps unreachable in normal human strength ranges.

Originally Posted by Gollum

Or it could reflect guys who don't do a lot of "generic" building exercises but still train a lot with their weapon (or their makiwara, for karate, or their punching bag) and, so, can hit very hard.

This is a very elegant solution.

For a single weapon skill, I'd make it a leveled Perk costing one point per +1 to damage. Probably limit it to +2 or +3. Striking ST is overpriced.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Anders

For a single weapon skill, I'd make it a leveled Perk costing one point per +1 to damage. Probably limit it to +2 or +3. Striking ST is overpriced.

+1 per point sounds cheap. Now, Striking ST (-10%) sounds a bit expensive ...

Looking at the Accessibility limitation examples (Basic Set, Characters, page 110), we can see that -20% corresponds to 50% of cases. So for only one type of weapon, something like -50% would fit better, in my humble opinion.

It would give: Striking ST (one type of weapon only, -50%): 3 points per level.

And I perfectly do agree with the idea of a limit (+2 or +3 sound sensible; maybe something like 25% of Basic ST).

[cdru]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

So a ST10 chap who punches at 1d-4 Thr cr, (average 0 injury!) is already doing 1d+1 Sw Cut with broad sword (average 6 injury)

Actually, a punch is thrust-1 crushing and ST10 does 1d-2 thrust. Which is still 0 injury on average making grapples (With teeth, preferably) and weapons a better option

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by cdru

Actually, a punch is thrust-1 crushing and ST10 does 1d-2 thrust. Which is still 0 injury on average, making grapples (With teeth, preferably) and weapons a better option

Good catch, cheers

TD

[Lucian]

I am also a martial artist, and ive trained with weapons.
Never in HEMA match up but under similar conditions.

I disagree with most of the martial arts opinion here.
I agree that skill is the main factor in winning and losing.
I also believe that this is accurately represented by DX being the more important stat.

But in spars or in HEMA we wear padding and were fighting for points. Most of the time we get points for maneuvering past our opponents guard and striking a spot that Could have been lethal.

We are not fighting enemies but competitors, and many times friends. Our goal is not to penetrate armor but too penetrate defenses.

None of us, anywhere have fought in a life or death situation against an armored opponent with a bladed or blunted weapon.

Where the goal is not to dance around a ring and score points but to survive. Physical strength becomes much more important because not only must you swing skillfully, but you must ensure that each swing has enough power to penetrate your enemy's armor. Each time you fail to kill him, he gets another chance to kill you.

I would imagine the best warriors on ancient battlefields had both exceptional strength and skill.

The strength stat in gurps makes perfect sense for increasing damage. The stronger you are, the deeper your blows cut, the more lethal your damage.

High skill as a damage bonus does exist in some forms
Either directly or indirectly.

Weapon masters damage bonus can be attributed to high skill.

Or having high enough skill too consistently pull off rapid strikes directly transfers to increased damage.

Extra attack can be attributed to weapon skill

You can even buy striking ST with a one weapon only limitation maybe -40% I'd probably let my players do that, but I'd cap it at 3 or 4 levels.

Indeed excellent form can increase the effectiveness of attacks, but it's limited. Like a sword swing getting the full benefit of its cutting power due to angle and grip, that's something I would describe as the bonus from weapon master.

I have been in real, physical fights, I used to live in a tough neighborhood. Now (unfortunately) you can't travel around with a katana on your back, so I was unarmed.

But this has happened several times to me over the course of a few years, once literally on the way home from the dojo where I had just sparred.

The difference in mental state in a real fight makes a huge amount of difference.

In a spar (this is wrestling, ju jitsu) my strikes are pulled, my locks are not applied with full force. Because my partner is my friend.

In these fights? I was aiming to cripple and maim because I did not know if he could pull a knife or gun if I let him go. My physical strength became more important, my technique was no less important, but the strength becomes more important.