Realism; Strength is not important for swordsmanship(?)

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Lucian

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.

This is where I think you're operating under a misapprehension. It is physically impossible to penetrate historical armor with a sword. It was never a question of hitting an armored foe hard enough to cut or thrust through his armor--can't be done.

All of the HEMA texts that teach how to fight with a sword against armor focus on grappling and throws (which, like all grappling do favor the stronger fighter) and striking through the openings that armor provides (usually half-swording (what GURPS calls defensive grip) in order to maximize tip control.

Strength probably does matter more when using a war-hammer or other weapon designed to actually harm your opponent directly through their armor. But swords aren't that.

Originally Posted by Lucian

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.

I think almost all of use agree on these points. But sufficient lethality can be achieved at pretty modest strengths (at least relative to unarmed combat).

If you're not wearing armor, I only need to be strong enough to push the point of my sword through your flesh and into your organs.

If you are wearing armor, I need to be strong enough to push the point of my sword through the padded cloth covering your armpit, or perhaps only through your cornea (in both cases with a second hand on my sword).

In either case, the average healthy adult is already strong enough to kill with good technique. I would be a better sword-fighter if I was stronger, but mostly because I experience muscular fatigue in a fight and because I'd like to be more dominant when the situation calls for grappling techniques.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Is that any different than it would be in GURPS? In GURPS, you'd just need to make contact to "score a point". You don't need to batter through someone's armor, or make sure you actually cleaved a guy's arm off. You mention weight classes in striking arts, but in the case of boxing, a more forceful blow is more useful than a less forceful blow, so ST matters there. And in wrestling, in GURPS, ST is necessary to make a pin or to prevent your opponent from breaking free.

The question here is whether ST should matter in GURPS when it comes to swordplay. The primary places it matters are in minimum ST, beats and damage. The experts seem to acknowledge the need for minimum ST, and if I'm honest, I doubt modern sword-experts are really that concerned about damage. They don't need to slice arms off for a living. I expect in reality, when it comes to actual damage, physical strength makes a difference. I'm not saying GURPS is perfect, but the idea that ST "doesn't matter" strikes me as nonsense. It does matter! But clearly skill matters more, and GURPS doesn't disagree with that.

Sorry, I didn't notice this post earlier.

Let me be clear, I'm not arguing that ST "doesn't matter" in swordplay. I'm specifically saying the relative strength of two opponents matters much less in sword fighting than other martial arts.

I'm also not alone in this assessment--the historical masters whose manuals I study have actually weighed in on this question. While noted sword-masters Liechtenauer, Meyer, Giganti, and Capo Ferro all say that skill is far more important than strength, bare-knuckle boxing champion Daniel Mendoza, despite being known for beating stronger opponents, writes that strength is more important than skill in a fist-fight.

As for GURPS, I think it does actually reflect this pretty well. My only complaints are:

A: There is no relationship between skill and damage with weapons, except with the cinematic trait weapons master (which comes with a slew of unrealistic benefits.)

B: Swings are somehow better at hurting people through armor then thrusts when the opposite is the case IRL (mostly corrected by the Edge Protection rules in Low-Tech).

C: It is too easy to keep fighting after being hit with a sword (especially thrusts to the torso--which should realistically mostly almost always hit an organ, even when the swordsman is on the weak side.)

[GodBeastX]

I'm of the opinion (And yes, this whole post is opinion) you can't really have DX without ST.

WHAAAAAT?!

Yes, I think that's one of the most unrealistic parts of GURPS, that someone could have trained their body to be nimble and fast, without having gained ST during the whole thing.

I could cite all kinds of Wikipedia Historian facts and Personal Examples, but in general, repeated motions, even without weight in the body, does build ST. And part of me wonders if there is actually a realistic reason to give people DX. It's a bit nebulous to me.

Now I'm not saying people would have high levels of ST, but if you look at generally any skill from GURPS that uses DX and you were to apply yourself to that skill over and over again, I bet generally all of them would be building up strength.

DX is cited as:

Dexterity measures a combination of agility, coordination, and fine motor ability. It controls your basic ability at most athletic, fighting, and vehicle-operation skills, and at craft skills that call for a delicate touch. DX also helps determine Basic Speed (a measure of reaction time, p. 17) and Basic Move (how fast you run, p. 17).

This actually touches quite a bit on "Intelligence". To explain:

The cerebellum is at the back of the brain, below the cerebrum. It's a lot smaller than the cerebrum at only 1/8 of its size. But it's a very important part of the brain. It controls balance, movement, and coordination (how your muscles work together).

So is DX mostly your Cerebellum? Intelligence? Maybe DX really is just "Cerebellum". And the ability to control how your muscles are controlled to interact with ST, some of it is still ST. Muscles aren't very simple. Just look at the degrees of motion and the control enforced on a finger to type!

Perhaps maybe Attributes play a little too strong a role in GURPS to make it realistic... maybe some attributes aren't really a thing...

But I guess at the end of the day, even if I'm wrong, right or just an opinionated internet goer, it's certainly more enjoyable to have DX than not. And part of the importance of GURPS isn't how well it emulates reality, but how much fun people have doing it.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by aesir23

...

C: It is too easy to keep fighting after being hit with a sword (especially thrusts to the torso--which should realistically mostly almost always hit an organ, even when the swordsman is on the weak side.)

Thing is not all organs are equal (certainly not in terms of incapacitation on a second by second scale)


That said one ST10 chap with a broadsword stabbing another ST/HP10 chap in the torso will be doing on average* 7 imp injury. That's a major wound, and drops the target to half dodge/Mv etc, etc

That realistically is the end of most fights even if the stabbed chap is still moving about a bit.


*strictly speaking average is 50% a 6 point injury and 50% a 8 point injury

[Kalzazz]

High ST does give some pretty serious advantages, but of course it should given its high cost (ST 9 vs ST 15 is 60pts)

ST is not as important for killing squishy unarmored humans with a sword

It is very useful for killing armored humans, dragons, ogres, stone golems and so forth

ST is also one of the vital ingredients to transforming from a squishy unarmored human to a less squishy armored one

One of the biggest problems I've found with 'weak plus skilled' is that they often lack the basic lift to back up their parry, burly foes can Slam or swing hefty weapons that they can't parry

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

One of the biggest problems I've found with 'weak plus skilled' is that they often lack the basic lift to back up their parry, burly foes can Slam or swing hefty weapons that they can't parry

Being unable to parry an attack is most often a problem of timing than a true problem of strength.

If you parry your foe's attack when his muscles are contracted, it is too late. Now, if the foe contracts his muscles during all the attack, his attack will be slow; it will be very easy to dodge it.

A very good strike is a strike where muscles are contracted only at the end. It gives a very quick and very strong attack. But it also allows the defender to parry it quite easily ... if he does it with the good timing!

[Kalzazz]

In GURPS you can't parry things outweighing your basic lift

With ST 9 your basic lift is 16.2

Slams by something of ST 17 or above, or some of the heftier SM +1 weapons or most SM +2 for instance

[Tomsdad]

Beats are another good way to leverage ST against speed/skill, especially for those fantasy builds where high ST is more common.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

In GURPS you can't parry things outweighing your basic lift

With ST 9 your basic lift is 16.2

Slams by something of ST 17 or above, or some of the heftier SM +1 weapons or most SM +2 for instance

Yes and that sounds realistic.

But, fortunately, there is still a difference between a slam attack made by someone with ST 17 and his sword swing attack ... A very skilled averagely strong man can parry the second, even if he cannot parry the first. Even a ST 17 warrior (which is quite cinematic) won't wield 17 lbs swords. Minimum ST for the shortsword (2 lbs) is 8. For the broadsword (3 lbs), it is 10. For the greatsword (7 lbs), it is 12. I don't know what it could be for a 17 lbs weapon, but surely much more than 17.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Gollum

Being unable to parry an attack is most often a problem of timing than a true problem of strength.

With a sword, factors such as your body structure and where on the sword you parry with make a HUGE difference.

Sword masters referred to the area near the point of a sword as "the weak" and the area near the hilt as "the strong."

If you place the strong of your sword on your opponent's weak, simple principles of leverage will allow you to easily move your opponent's sword no matter how much they resist. Seriously, try this at home. Try it against someone stronger than you. Makes no difference.

Similarly, you can parry any blow if you catch it on the strong of your blade or on the cross. Especially if you parry with the "true edge"* (the edge that lines up with your knuckles and faces away from you) as this enforces good body mechanics.





*HEMA practitioners who argue that you should only parry with the flat of the blade do so against the advice of the renaissance rapier masters and 19th century saber and broadsword manuals.