Advantages of a short sword

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Christian Cameron, the former naval intelligence officer and historical novelist slash HEMA reenactor?

yes, I met him while I was living in the old country. His web presence is chaotic so I can't figure out where he told that story.

People who collect 18th and 19th century swords argue about whether to use them as tools or treat them as sacred objects which should be handled with white cotton gloves.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

yes, I met him while I was living in the old country. His web presence is chaotic so I can't figure out where he told that story.

From his writings, he seems cool.

Definitely the kind of background that NPCs in my campaign need.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

People who collect 18th and 19th century swords argue about whether to use them as tools or treat them as sacred objects which should be handled with white cotton gloves.

For Napoleonic Wars, Crimean and American Civil War, there were generally so many made of issue swords, knives and bayonets that it's fine to use them.

[Anders]

Remember also that there's no reason why weapons have to be equally good.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Anders

Remember also that there's no reason why weapons have to be equally good.

True in life. Debatable in a game. Having "trap" weapons where (especially novice) players can dump points or money to poor effect is not awesome game design.

Swords especially are dangerous this way, as they're very expensive.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

True in life. Debatable in a game. Having "trap" weapons where (especially novice) players can dump points or money to poor effect is not awesome game design.

While outright equality may not be necessary, at the very least there should be trade-offs. This is fortunately already present for the case of short sword vs broadsword, as while the former has worse performance than the latter, it is also cheaper - but going further (such as reduced CC penalties) isn't unwelcome.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Swords especially are dangerous this way, as they're very expensive.

Quite. I previously created a weapon design system that could fairly-faithfully recreate the majority of the weapons in Low Tech, but got stuck when it came to swords, as I couldn't figure out a way to justify their massive price increase relative to comparable weapons. I may try to track that down and just not try to adjust sword prices - that would certainly work just fine for many fantasy settings where a "peasant adventurer" could easily start out with a sword and shield.

[Polkageist]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

True in life. Debatable in a game. Having "trap" weapons where (especially novice) players can dump points or money to poor effect is not awesome game design.

Swords especially are dangerous this way, as they're very expensive.

True-ish, weapons are objects with significant investment so that investment isn't made unless there's a good reason for it. Every weapon was made to accomplish a certain task, like cracking open an armored knight (estoc, picks) or unhorsing cavalry (billhook) or breaking up pike formations (greatswords I think, the landsknecht guys).

So yeah, not necessarily equally good at the same job but a given weapon will be good at a particular job. The game's job is to make sure that it's clear when to use a particular weapon over another. And yeah, a trap weapon that's strictly worse that another in all of the game's use cases is a pretty bad idea. I don't *think* gurps does that intentionally, though it's varied and detailed enough that there may be some slip ups.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Varyon

While outright equality may not be necessary, at the very least there should be trade-offs. This is fortunately already present for the case of short sword vs broadsword, as while the former has worse performance than the latter, it is also cheaper - but going further (such as reduced CC penalties) isn't unwelcome.

Yah...completely. "This is better in CC, that better on defense, this other one hits like a ton of bricks. You can get any ONE of those for X moneys, two for 4X moneys, or all three in one weapon for 10X moneys." That's all well and good.

you can get one of these in "Axe" flavor for X moneys, or the same thing in "Sword" flavor for 5-10X moneys. Hatchet vs small falchion, for example; hatchet vs shortsword is exactly 10X the cost for the dubious benefit of a thr+1 impaling attack that does not out-do swing at ST 10 or higher.

Both weapons have Reach 1, no U-parry, sw cut, and are 2 lbs. The only thing you get for 10x the money is a thrust-imp attack that is rarely going to see use.

That's a trap. It also plays very much against trope, where swords are the thing.

(I also note that the 1.5-2lb battle-axe I usually train with is most closely modeled by the hatchet; the two-handed Dane Axe I use is 3-4 lbs and 56" long...)


Edit: I should add that I'm very much aware that in real life, making something that's long, springy, strong, tough, and all the things that go into a high quality sword is really hard, and thus expensive. Thus my "true in life, less so in a game" comment. Swords are HARD to make; I get that. But my comment is really around game design rather than reality simulation, for the reason that we're playing a game here.

I'm also painfully aware of the difference in cost. I've just made a deal with my wife that if I can lose 30 lbs, I can get myself a training axe and sword. Guess which one is $250, and which one is $1,500...

[martinl]

I'd agree with various folks above and say the primary role for short swords is tightly packed heavy inf formations.

I used to SCA (~re-enact), and virtually no one fought one on one combat with a short sword[1]. However, military units with big shield walls often used them, and pole arm users might have one as a backup weapon (a longer sword tended to trip you up).

This means many PCs will not want or need them, and that's ok. PCs generally don't use pikes for similar reasons.

[1] There were a few folks who would duel with short swords while holding hands or holding onto a barrier with the off hand. This is a stunt, and a crazy one, but also one that was done historically.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

That's a trap. It also plays very much against trope, where swords are the thing.

Give the hatchet a vertical spike, and even the dubious benefit of thr+1 imp goes away for the falchion. In the system I designed, swords were basically trap weapons in general, as you can give up the bonus to swing damage to get balanced axes with spikes that basically perform in combat every bit as well as swords for I believe 1/5th the cost (or pay a bit more than 1/5th cost to put a poll or hammer opposite the axe head, gaining a solid sw cr or sw imp attack as well). Falchions are basically trap weapons in GURPS generally, as you give up the only thing large swords have over comparable-weight axes-with-spikes, which is basically being able to use Defensive Attack for a Parry bonus (IIRC, an axe-with-spike that uses Defensive Attack to get rid of Parry U basically performs like a comparable-weight sword, at little more than 1/5th the price).

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Edit: I should add that I'm very much aware that in real life, making something that's long, springy, strong, tough, and all the things that go into a high quality sword is really hard, and thus expensive. Thus my "true in life, less so in a game" comment. Swords are HARD to make; I get that. But my comment is really around game design rather than reality simulation, for the reason that we're playing a game here.

I'm also painfully aware of the difference in cost. I've just made a deal with my wife that if I can lose 30 lbs, I can get myself a training axe and sword. Guess which one is $250, and which one is $1,500...

Yeah, this is why I was loathe to do away with the ~+4 CF for "being a sword" (specifically, I had a material quality intermediate between Good and Fine, called Blade)... but when I couldn't figure out a mechanical benefit, the system got stuck in Limbo. Given GURPS already deviates from much of history in this regard by having plate cost more than mail, however, it may not be that egregious to take That Other Game's approach to sword prices.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Give the hatchet a vertical spike, and even the dubious benefit of thr+1 imp goes away for the falchion.

And I note that while this axe clearly has no thrust mode, this one, the Type L axe as well as this one, made by cold steel are both sub-2-lb axes that emphatically have a point with which you can thrust. The Cold Steel axe less so, obviously. Note that first non-thrusting axe is closer to 2.5 lbs, while the others are 1.5 to 2 lbs.

Yeah, this is why I was loathe to do away with the ~+4 CF for "being a sword" (specifically, I had a material quality intermediate between Good and Fine, called Blade)... but when I couldn't figure out a mechanical benefit, the system got stuck in Limbo. Given GURPS already deviates from much of history in this regard by having plate cost more than mail, however, it may not be that egregious to take That Other Game's approach to sword prices.

Personally, I'd rather go a slightly different way...but now I'm firmly off topic and have been for a while. My bad. Will start new thread if interested.