Keeping Opponents at Bay

[Kalzazz]

Thats why I said 'if your brawny', since slams use ST = lbs

A brawny ST 17 bruiser can threaten to break a Spear fairly well, and have a shot at breaking a Long Spear even, and definitely poses a threat to those 3lb Edged Rapiers oh so loved by folks

Godogma's ranger has a pet Bear Dog (or Cave Dog or something, a SM+1 dog at any rate) who was constantly getting his unarmed attacks parried and eating damage from it, until he learned Sumo Wrestling and started Slamming left and right through the enemies attempts at parrying his ST 45 bulk

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

Thats why I said 'if your brawny', since slams use ST = lbs

A brawny ST 17 bruiser can threaten to break a Spear fairly well, and have a shot at breaking a Long Spear even, and definitely poses a threat to those 3lb Edged Rapiers oh so loved by folks

Godogma's ranger has a pet Bear Dog (or Cave Dog or something, a SM+1 dog at any rate) who was constantly getting his unarmed attacks parried and eating damage from it, until he learned Sumo Wrestling and started Slamming left and right through the enemies attempts at parrying his ST 45 bulk

Yeah, but if you're brawny you could use a heavier weapon.

Though this probably doesn't apply if you are a giant dog with no hands.

[mr beer]

Originally Posted by dcarson

There is a reason that spears, pikes etc are army weapons while swords tend to be personal weapons. A spear is fairly easy to patty or block aside and then get inside of, a wall of them is harder. Spears and other such are also a lot cheaper then swords which also makes them a army weapon or personal weapon of not rich characters.

There is also the fact that swords are a poor weapon choice vs. chain and especially plate (or maille and harness if you prefer), which reduces their utility to 'sidearm' on the battlefield.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by mr beer

There is also the fact that swords are a poor weapon choice vs. chain and especially plate (or maille and harness if you prefer), which reduces their utility to 'sidearm' on the battlefield.

Spears are probably not better against armor than swords are, so that alone can't do much to explain the position of the sword.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Spears are probably not better against armor than swords are, so that alone can't do much to explain the position of the sword.

Tbf he said in addition to. However what I think it is in GURPS terms is what dcarson said someone even in a lot of plate rushing a long spear block is going to get hit with a lot of stop hits, someone might get lucky! I,.e while individually spears are no better against armour than swords, you can theoretically concentrate a lot more of them onto armour.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Of course, he probably shouldn't do any of those things. The Move maneuver is generally the best way to rush through someone's threat zone.

That's Move and Wild Swing (really, Move and Attack, but I'm used to some old terminology). It's the better choice, but it's still not very good.

[Kromm]

There's a big difference between Move and Attack (which comes with all kinds of coordination and defense drawbacks, like "no parry," "no retreat," and "-2 to rolls for everything else") and just plain Move (which has no such drawbacks). It is indeed usually most prudent for the warrior with the shorter weapon to "burn" a turn for a pure Move to run into close combat – no weapon attack, no slam, no evade, just run in there. He'll have the advantage there if his foe stays put (the longer the weapon, the bigger the close-combat penalty), and if the fighter with the longer weapon wants to disengage and reopen the gap, his options are to evade (which is usually doomed to failure owing to the -5 for a standing foe) or to move back (at double cost, which means he can't go very far).

It's this precise tactic that fans of long weapons don't like in GURPS. Unfortunately, it's probably realistic. It isn't as if "charging" means "defenseless", or as if the person with the shorter weapon can't use that weapon or a shield to shove the longer weapon aside.

Still, it might be fair to allow those who Wait and prepare a Stop Thrust to trade off the usual +1 to damage per two yards of attacker movement for -1 to the enemy's defenses per two yards of movement. This would represent the speed with which a weapon can be maneuvered being superior to that at which a running person can correct course. By definition, the weapon is maneuvering rather than fixed, so it loses the damage bonus for being braced. I don't see anything unbalanced about a spearman who's charged from six yards off giving his opponent -3 to defend instead of rolling +3 damage. (Look at it this way: All-Out Attack equates +4 to skill to +2 to damage, so every +1 to damage sacrificed is +2 to skill, which could be converted to a Deceptive Attack giving -1 to defense.)

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Kromm

It's this precise tactic that fans of long weapons don't like in GURPS. Unfortunately, it's probably realistic. It isn't as if "charging" means "defenseless", or as if the person with the shorter weapon can't use that weapon or a shield to shove the longer weapon aside.

What do you think of my gripe about a mid-charge Retreat? Move allows a Retreat, sure, but moving two spaces forward, one space back (as a Retreat), and then three more spaces forward is an awful lot of maneuvering to do.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

What do you think of my gripe about a mid-charge Retreat? Move allows a Retreat, sure, but moving two spaces forward, one space back (as a Retreat), and then three more spaces forward is an awful lot of maneuvering to do.

Personally, I think that if someone wants to charge an opponent and retreat along the way, it isn't an issue if you visualize it correctly. If someone with Move 6 moves three yards, steps back one, and then moves three more . . . well, they cover five yards instead of six. They've lost a yard of movement, and I'd be fine with saying that rather than a true retreat, they simply slowed a bit to interfere with the timing of the enemy attack. I don't see that as especially mind-bending; if I'm a yard short of where my foe thought I'd be when he attacks, then it seems logical that this would make a miss more likely, and it doesn't seem to matter how or why that was achieved.

[Terwin]

Originally Posted by Kromm

It's this precise tactic that fans of long weapons don't like in GURPS. Unfortunately, it's probably realistic. It isn't as if "charging" means "defenseless", or as if the person with the shorter weapon can't use that weapon or a shield to shove the longer weapon aside.

In my LARPing experience, users of long weapons do not much care for it there either.

At 6'6" and with a preference for longer weapons to maximize the effects of my reach, I much prefer when opponents keep their distance, as I can snipe them to death at the edge of my reach with relative safety. Shield users especially like to rush in, minimizing my opportunities to strike. Those without shields will often do it as well, but a shield makes it an especially difficult tactic to deal with. (I tend to back-peddle and strike for the legs)

It is a tactic that works, and works well. I even use it against those using pole-arms.