Bastard Sword / Greatsword / Katana : thrusting range/damage

[Plane]

Comparing 2-handed swords from B274, these swords have the exact same reach for cutting (1,2) and B/K are tied for cutting damage (GS is +1 relative)

The non-thrusting versions of the Bastard/Great above Katanaactually list thrust+2 CRUSHING... were they meant to be blunt-tipped?

The two "thrusting" variations of these below Katana list thrust+3 impaling... Have maybe some name variations existed like "Non-Thrusting Bastard Sword or Non-Thrusting Bastard Sword?

Where I'm thrown for a loop here is how it works with Katana having a mere reach 1 for it's thrusting while the other 4 swords have reach 2 for thrusting.

How do we envision the idea of a sword being unable to impale at the length it cuts at?

This isn't just for Katanas: it applies to B272's Small Knife and Large Knife too: they impale at reach C and cut at reach C,1.

These three weapons stand out as hard to imagine the mechanics of.

Someone took a stab at answering this back in 2006...

Originally Posted by Ragabash Moon

if you are slashing at someone, you can hit them with any point along the blade...
However, if you are stabbing someone that is at reach of 2... well, the tip will just nick them... you need to be at range 1 and put the sword INSIDE their body...

I have a two problems thinking of it that way though...

1) putting a sword inside a body is never guaranteed: they might have DR which prevents penetrating damage
2) why would this apply to katanas/knives but not to greats/bastards?

Given the introduction of "Tip Slash" (GURPS Martial Arts) it actually seems like there isn't as much need for there to be variable cutting ranges. Blades (knives or swords) could simply consistently have a thrust-impaling reach of 1 greater than it's swing/cutting reach, because if they wanted to do cutting damage at the greater reach they could use Tip Slash.

Could this maybe be solved by just giving all weapons an across-the-board +1 to reach only for thrust damage which doesn't help swings?

MA97's AOA (Long) is the closest thing that comes to mind but it doesn't actually give thrusting a range benefit over swing. Instead there is just a damage penalty which makes you less inclined to use them.

AOA (Long) with a Katana would be Reach 2,3 for sw+0 cut or Reach 2 for thr+1 imp so the weirdness still exists: how can one's ability to cut/grasp exceed his ability to touch/poke?

As best I can figure, some swords' thrusting represents a straight-arm thrust (sword is parallel with straightarm) while other swords' thrusting represents a bent somewhere along the line (in the elbow or in the wrist) which reduces the range.

That sounds a lot like making a wrap-shot to me which is usually a penalty (Long Weapons in Close Combat)

If the assumption is that bent-arm (non-maximized reach) stabs are needed for the stated power, then could be invent some sort of reasonable option to to thrust at less power but greater reach? Maybe something like -1 or -2 to basic damage in exchange for getting +1 reach with thrusting attacks which swing attacks can't use?

[Varyon]

Yes, the default for Bastard Sword, Broadsword, and Greatsword is a weapon with a blunt tip, and you need the "Thrusting" variant to match what 99% of people think of when they hear the word "sword." I have no idea why this decision was made; I can only guess it's some sort of legacy issue.

A solid weapon with a pointy end that can deal damage with a swing further than it can with a thrust makes no sense, really - something that has a shorter swinging reach makes more sense than something with a shorter thrusting reach. An example would be the Longsword (found in MA and LT; note there's no "thrusting" distinction, it simply has a sharpened point), which can swing at reach 1 and thrust at reach 1,2. Honestly, I'd probably replace the Katana reach with that (I believe early katana were roughly as long as European Longswords). Generally speaking, thrust reach should always equal or exceed swing reach, unless using some weird weapon design that can be gripped further from the striking surface with a swing than with a thrust (I have no idea what sort of design would allow that, however).

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Yes, the default for Bastard Sword, Broadsword, and Greatsword is a weapon with a blunt tip, and you need the "Thrusting" variant to match what 99% of people think of when they hear the word "sword." I have no idea why this decision was made; I can only guess it's some sort of legacy issue.

There are many examples of medieval swords with blunted or rounded tips, likely because tips on heavy swords are more likely to be broken or bent in combat so it was cheaper and easier to make rounded tips. It's even possible that some of them were repairs done to swords which had their tips broken, so you round down the tip in an attempt to salvage the (expensive) sword. How representative they are or not doesn't really matter, they existed, so the rules needed to have at least an option for a blunted tipped sword; somewhere back in time it was decided to have separate blunted tipped swords and "Thrusting" swords, and that legacy has stuck with the game.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Yes, the default for Bastard Sword, Broadsword, and Greatsword is a weapon with a blunt tip, and you need the "Thrusting" variant to match what 99% of people think of when they hear the word "sword." I have no idea why this decision was made; I can only guess it's some sort of legacy issue.

Do you happen to recall any pictures (in GURPS book or otherwise) of swords like these?

Originally Posted by Varyon

An example would be the Longsword (found in MA and LT; note there's no "thrusting" distinction, it simply has a sharpened point), which can swing at reach 1 and thrust at reach 1,2. Honestly, I'd probably replace the Katana reach with that (I believe early katana were roughly as long as European Longswords). Generally speaking, thrust reach should always equal or exceed swing reach, unless using some weird weapon design that can be gripped further from the striking surface with a swing than with a thrust (I have no idea what sort of design would allow that, however).

Ideas for generic sword/knife rules...

1) only one thrusting range per weapon skill, always higher than swung
2) always rely on tip slash to do cutting damage at max thrust reach
3) C-reach cutting range (unless it's a variant with a dull edge near the pommel and only the distal half can do cutting) with maybe 1-2 more depending no length, so long as it doesn't exceed tip
4) all reach 1+ blades can half their reach (thrust and swing) shortened by gripping the blade instead of handle (half-swording) to avoid the -4 penalty for wrap shots but this takes a ready maneuver
5) unless it has a non-cutting edge for C-reach, this isn't safe to do like with spears/polearms and some kind of roll needs to be made to avoid cutting oneself, first when gripping the weapon, and every time the character makes any sort of movement with that weapon
6) glove DR would protect against this
7) swords kept wielded 2H would be -1 to reach if attacking into left or right hex, due to only that side's arm being able to be straight
8) however someone using 2H could let go as a free action to allow just that side's arm to complete the attack. This might do slightly more than an entirely 1H attack but should do less than an entirely 2H attack
9) maybe it should involve some sort of Quick-Draw skill roll to do that as a free action during an attack, since normally you would use a Ready to switch betwee 1H and 2H grips on a sword.

I guess I'm just trying to figure out what original intentions were behind the short knife / long knife / katana having a cutting reach 1 higher than it's thrusting...

Is it maybe something to do with like for long-handled swords, for thrusting you would have to grip a sword closer to the blade (just behind the hilt) for stability, but for swinging, you could let your hand drift furhter from the blade (just above the pommel) for extra reach?

if that's the case then some kind of option for "thrusts while gripping above the pommel" to at least tie the cutting range seems right... like if maybe that's really wobbly and hard to aim you'd take a skill penalty for doing it.

What if it was the reverse of a wrap shot, so you could do a reach 2 thrusting attack with a katana for -4 to skill?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Plane

Do you happen to recall any pictures (in GURPS book or otherwise) of swords like these?

Here's one from a quick Google search. That's probably a GURPS Broadsword (non-thrusting). Executioner's swords are probably either GURPS Bastard Swords or GURPS Greatswords (again, non-thrusting).

Originally Posted by Plane

1) only one thrusting range per weapon skill, always higher than swung

Even assuming you mean per weapon rather than per weapon skill (or perhaps you meant per weapon-weapon skill combination, like Bastard Sword having an entry on both the Broadsword and Two-Handed Sword tables), I disagree. There are "in-between" weapons that are long enough to stab at reach 2 but that wouldn't be difficult to stab at reach 1, certainly not enough to justify a full -4.

Originally Posted by Plane

2) always rely on tip slash to do cutting damage at max thrust reach

Again, I disagree. There are weapons that can cut someone just fine at reach 1 but aren't long enough to thrust at reach 2. With that said, a weapon that has thrust reach of 1,2 would most likely have a swing reach of 1, as it's short enough that it can basically only strike with the tip of the sword at reach 2, thus making it reliant on tip slashes to cut there. Even then, a sword's tip slash is probably better than that of a rapier or similar; I'd say -1 relative to the impaling damage, rather than -2 (just as is seen with the heavy spear and short spear).

Basically, the way I see it, you can have a weapon that's reach C for both, reach C,1 for thr and C for sw*, reach 1 for thr and C,1 for sw, reach 1 for both, then 1,2 thr / 1 sw, 2 thr / 1,2 sw, etc. Some weapons that are right in a "sweet spot" of size might be justified to be reach 1,2 for both thr and sw, but the above progression is cleaner (and possibly a bit more fair).

*Personally, I dislike reach C swinging attacks, simply because I feel you need at least reach 1 before you have enough leverage to get the swinging damage bonus. For most knives, I'd probably replace their swinging attack with a thr cut, either equal to or at -1 compared to their imp damage, essentially as a tip slash.

Originally Posted by Plane

3) C-reach cutting range (unless it's a variant with a dull edge near the pommel and only the distal half can do cutting) with maybe 1-2 more depending no length, so long as it doesn't exceed tip

Are you suggesting that all swords that lack a ricasso should be able to swing at reach C? I strongly disagree - striking with a long weapon in close combat is awkward, even if the weapon theoretically has a usable striking surface within rather close reach of the hand. The -4 (or more) is very much appropriate there. A draw cut (which would use thr, not sw) might be doable at a reduced penalty, however.

Originally Posted by Plane

4) all reach 1+ blades can half their reach (thrust and swing) shortened by gripping the blade instead of handle (half-swording) to avoid the -4 penalty for wrap shots but this takes a ready maneuver

That's probably fine, it's just a finer-graded form of the option to reduce to reach C when using Defensive Grip with a sword (see MA110-111).

Originally Posted by Plane

5) unless it has a non-cutting edge for C-reach, this isn't safe to do like with spears/polearms and some kind of roll needs to be made to avoid cutting oneself, first when gripping the weapon, and every time the character makes any sort of movement with that weapon
6) glove DR would protect against this

From what I understand, half-swording even with a sharpened blade is doable without hand protection, so long as you know what you are doing. Swinging is probably a bad idea, but that's already the case for Defensive Grip (which this is a variant of). Sharp swords weren't typically razor sharp.

Originally Posted by Plane

7) swords kept wielded 2H would be -1 to reach if attacking into left or right hex, due to only that side's arm being able to be straight
8) however someone using 2H could let go as a free action to allow just that side's arm to complete the attack. This might do slightly more than an entirely 1H attack but should do less than an entirely 2H attack
9) maybe it should involve some sort of Quick-Draw skill roll to do that as a free action during an attack, since normally you would use a Ready to switch betwee 1H and 2H grips on a sword.

If I'm parsing this right, you're talking about when the character is gripping the ricasso/tip, correct? I don't think left/right should matter terribly much, although I suppose you could do it, but note Defensive Grip already penalizes Wild Swings (which attacks to the Side hexes are). Switching from 2H to 1H, or Defensive Grip to normal grip, is more than just taking a hand off, so it should require a Ready. Allowing a roll to make this a free action is acceptable. Personally, I'm inclined to make Fast-Draw into an Average Technique for the relevant use skill - I'm thinking something like -4 or -5. Letting the same work for other types of quick-Ready would probably be OK.

Originally Posted by Plane

Is it maybe something to do with like for long-handled swords, for thrusting you would have to grip a sword closer to the blade (just behind the hilt) for stability, but for swinging, you could let your hand drift furhter from the blade (just above the pommel) for extra reach?

While tip control is easier the closer your hand is to the tip, holding the weapon further from the handguard and thrusting effectively is hardly impossible; at worst, there could be a small penalty, but I don't feel this would be appropriate unless perhaps targeting armor chinks/gaps (just as holding the sword near the tip gives +2 for improved tip control, but only for reducing the penalty to target chinks/gaps).

For a fictional example that is nonetheless a decent illustration of holding the sword away from the crossguard, take a look at Saitou Hajime from Rurouni Kenshin. The grip he uses for his signature gatoutsu attacks involves holding the sword away from the crossguard; see here. My own personal headcanon (given the real Saitou was noted for having a tricky, hard-to-defend-against technique of some sort) is that he fights with a normal two-handed stance (right hand near the handguard, left near the pommel), and releases his right hand (possibly with a distracting flourish) while thrusting with this left, getting a little extra reach and no small amount of surprise out of the maneuver. His telegraphed-from-a-mile-away gatoutsu is just typical shounen anime ridiculousness.

[Tomsdad]

Honestly I'd just put the loss of reach for Katana thrusts in comparison to the bastard sword down as different RL design of swords tipping over game mechanic thresholds.

Katana obviously could thrust but swings were more prevalent. They have a slight curve compared to the straighter bastard swords. Katana's have a relatively thick heavy short blade compared to these other swords. Something that allows than to swing and cut well for their entire length relatively better than a bastard sword can with it's full length. Basically the use and thus development of Katanas generally speaking favours Swung cuts over thrusts and so yeah the balanced 5lb two handed sword predisposed to cutting can cut as well as the unbalanced 5lb two handed sword, but not thrust in quite as free a way.

But two big points I think:

1). Not every Katana was identical and neither was every bastard sword, the listings are for typical examples. You want to have katana Thrust at 2 add a bit a weight and maybe bump up MinST or add unbalanced. I'm sure some beefy samurai at some point said I'd like a longer sword so I can stab chaps further away Everything is relative and all these weapons are on spectrum of "sword" and often overlap each other in different aspects.


2). System granularity. History might have been full of katanas that were slightly different from each other in terms of blade length and they're wielders might have felt they saw a range of effects from them. But GURPS does Reach 1 and Reach 2, it doesn't do reach 1.3 or 2.1! Going from reach 1 to reach 2 allows you stab someone on average 3ft further away, but we know that a bastard sword blade isn't 3ft longer than a Katana's or that a katana blade doesn't suddenly grow 3ft when it swung. These stats are threshold based approximations and they are all given in order to paint a picture with game mechanics of at times only slightly different things.

[Varyon]

Oh, I can absolutely see a game designer thinking "Hey, katanas are better at the cut than the thrust, right? Let's give them a better reach with cut." The problem is, it doesn't make physical sense. If you have a sharp, pointy object that can reach far enough to cause appreciable damage when swinging it, it can reach just as far - and thus cause appreciable damage - when thrusting it. Weapons don't magically get longer when swung (unless they incorporate a bungee cord or something). So, swing reach 1,2 and thrust reach 2 - or maybe even thrust reach 1,2 (although that may make the katana bit too good; it would join the edged rapier as the only swords that can both thrust and swing at 1,2, and really the edged rapier should probably be swing reach 1, using a tip slash at reach 2) - would make more sense than swing reach 1,2 and thrust reach 1.

[Anaraxes]

Tip Slash has a canonical definition on MA113: swing attack at max reach doing imp* -2 cut.

--
* yes, based on impaling damage, not swing, also with lowered damage. Despite the damage base, it's still a swing for rules purposes where there's a difference between swinging and thrusting.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Oh, I can absolutely see a game designer thinking "Hey, katanas are better at the cut than the thrust, right? Let's give them a better reach with cut." The problem is, it doesn't make physical sense. If you have a sharp, pointy object that can reach far enough to cause appreciable damage when swinging it, it can reach just as far - and thus cause appreciable damage - when thrusting it. Weapons don't magically get longer when swung...

True but as I posted the katana blade is better suited to maintaining its cutting ability all the way along it blade moreso than a bastard sword. Which basically mans although the Kanata blade might be shorter than the bastard sword's blade it can maintain it's cutting better further along it blade. I.e in GURPS terms they can cut at equal range despite the katana being shorter. But when it come to thrusting the bastard sword with the extra reach has an advantage. Of course since Katana wielders were relying less on thrusts they tend to notice the lack less.

Like I said end result is both are 5lb two handed swords with MinST11 but the Bastard swords trade off is being unbalanced (when one handed), which is partly from the fact it's longer and still getting that +2 sw damage. The katana can keep being balanced even when one handed and maintaining it's cutting power with it's shorter (but thicker) blade compared to the Bastard sword but loses out when it come to thrusts.


Take the longsword or Jian compared to the Katana you get the opposite direction of effect from the bastard sword. Both the Jian and longsword have effective thr range better than than their sw range. Not because they suddenly shrink when they swing but because both are more designed for the thrust with a lighter blade that while long don't keep an effective cutting length like the katana. (both are lighter, do less sw cut damage)




Tl;dr it not just about blade length in absolute terms (and thus that blade length changing in absolute terms which as you say is impossible) it's about effective blade length for maintaining cutting ability and different types of blade will have different effective lengths from their absolute lengths.

[phayman53]

One thing to consider is that curved swords, while they can thrust, require different body mechanics for the thrust (more of a circular motion). This reduces effective thrusting range when compared to a straight sword of the same length. This could, potentially, be even shorter than the cutting range--at least for an effective thrust. Now, I'm not sure a katana is curved enough for this to be the case, but it is one possible explanation for why they made that choice in the generally very realistic Low-Tech.

As for the Longsword being able to thrust out to 2 but only cut at 1, this represents the effective cutting range of a Longsword of the type being modeled. The thrust-centered, very pointy, anti-armor Longswords are able to cut, but you usually have to cut about a third of the way back from the tip of the blade for the cut to be effective.