Low Tech vs Basic Weapon Stats
 

My impression is that when stats in Low Tech differer from the Basic Set, the Low Tech stats are consider a more realistic option. I.e. The Basic Set stats are not in error; but it's advised to consistently use either the Low Tech or Basic Set stats, not both.

E.g. Basic Set, p. 273 says a Shortsword does thr imp damage. Low Tech, p. 69 sats a Shortsword does thr+1 imp damage. Basic Set also assigns the Shortsword to TL 2, Low Tech to TL 1. The stats for the Shortsword are otherwise identical.

So, neither stat block is wrong, correct? There is no errata here. If I want more options and more realism I should go with Low Tech. If I want quick and easy I should go with Basic Set.

Re: Low Tech vs Basic Weapon Stats
 

Yep, that's exactly right.

Re: Low Tech vs Basic Weapon Stats
 

My understanding was that newer books override older books in any conflict.
So stats in low-tech take precedence over the basic set.

Re: Low Tech vs Basic Weapon Stats
 

Don't go overboard on making Low Tech more realistic in it's weapon damage. Melee weapon is usually determined on an arbitrary and gamist basis.

For example, that Thr+1 Shortsword does more damage than the one in Basic because one of the authors thought it deserved to as a matter of game balance as compared to the Thr Broadsword with it's +2 Imp..

As a counter-example, if an Estoc does +2 Imp then a Thr Broadsword probably shouldn't. The Estoc has a narrower but stronger point. The +2 Imp Broadsword probably only ended up that way because of some perceived fine point from long ago about the relative balance of Thr v. Swing with Broadswords at c. ST11-13.

In answer to your other question, yes there were sharp, hilted weapons within the Shortsword Skill's range of length and weight during the historical TL1 period. The original authors may have been thinking of the historical roman Gladius as the archetypal "shortsword" and it is TL2

The effect of range of physical characteristics on game stats should be remembered. A TL1 bronze Mycenaean thrusting sword wasn't that robust a weapon and may have done only Thr Imp and weighed only 2lbs (w/scabbard as High Tech wants to tell us). However, the very robust TL2 Gladius could merit the +1 but it weighs slightly over 2.5 lbs without a scabbard.

<shrug> Most Gurps melee weapon skill categories are incredibly broad and the exact stats of particular weapons they cover should be taken only as typical of that range and not definitive. there simply isn't even an exact nomenclature for historical weapons and exact stats can only be atched to a specific example.

Re: Low Tech vs Basic Weapon Stats
 

There's nothing quicker or easier about Basic Set weapon stats compared to Low Tech. The Low Tech stats tweak a few weapons that probably should be, and don't change anything else or add any complexity at all. If you have both, use Low Tech unless you're violently allergic to looking at longer tables.

Re: Low Tech vs Basic Weapon Stats
 

You will find Low Tech does NOT change stats on weapons found in Basic Set. However it does add it's own items.

For example. Shortsword stays the same in Low Tech, but they added Long Knife as a more "Correct" Short Sword.

I think there is a rule in GURPS books that they cannot alter the Basic Set stats on Items/Objects.

Re: Low Tech vs Basic Weapon Stats
 

Kromm did not follow such a policy in Low Tech. Some examples are the changed thrusting damage of the Shortsword, and the new entry for using an Axe with Two-Handed Axe/Mace skill.

Re: Low Tech vs Basic Weapon Stats
 

Yeah, it was not universally adopted. But by and large, I am under the impression that GodBeastX is right, and sometimes you have strange "duplicates". The obvious example is the bastard sword, which the authors admit is not historical, side by side with the longsword. Another strange thing is that insistence of having both blunt pointed and thrusting broadswords, when the vast majority of weapons of that kind seems to have had a decent point and have been cut-and-thrust weapons (the exceptions that I am aware of are very early Iron Age examples).

For its subject matter, LT is one of 4e books that I looked forward to most enthusiastically, and it is a great book, but I cannot help thinking that in some ways there was room for improvement.

Re: Low Tech vs Basic Weapon Stats
 

Some info that might relevant to the discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjMtzJ6xgQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-6x8H9yI6c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhnn9u0S8ZY

Short Sword not to be confused with Small Sword:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7zv2gRpgAc

Both Skalagrim and Scholagladiatoria are brilliant on the topic of swords IMHO.

Re: Low Tech vs Basic Weapon Stats
 

From my personal standpoint, while I trust Matt to know his stuff (haven't actually chatted with him in years since we both left ARMA), skalagrim is pretty worthless from my point of view. His information is frequently questionable.