Thr Damage of Swords
 

I've been grappling with an issue for some time now, and that's the thrusting damage of swords in GURPS. Why are there differences between the stabbing damage of various swords? For example, a thrusting broadsword deals thr+2, where a backsword, cavalry sabre, or katana deals thr+1. Of course, this could be chalked up to design, but in one of the books the broadsword is described as being able to represent a cavalry sabre, meaning that the sabre should deal the same damage. The backsword is defined as being a single-edged thrusting broadsword, but like I said, deals less damage. There's also a difference in cost and TL between these weapons, despite them being apparently the same. What's going on here? It seems to me to be a big and unnecessary lack of consistency.

Another question, why doesn't the longsword deal extra swinging damage when two handed?

Re: Thr Damage of Swords
 

Re: Thr Damage of Swords
 

My interpretation is that the Thrust +2 impaling broadword represents a late-medieval sword designed to pierce heavy armor. It would be a bit better at that than a sabre.

But then also the "grain" of the numbers breaks down: the problem is the combination of wanting things to be simple and generic and having chosen a number scale that doesn't have very many numbers to choose values for some things to represent differences between them. Since they chose swing +1 cutting to be a "broadsword" or katana, +2 to be a large unbalanced ST 12 axe or bastard sword, and +3 to be a greatsword or two-handed axe or light swung polearm, that doesn't leave much room for subtlety with different types of one-handed swords to have different swing damages without having the same values as other things that are supposed to be even more different.

Without overhauling the number scale to offer more grain (which I have done, but that's outside the scope), what I do is only give the +2 impaling broadsword to specialized armor-piercers such as late medieval war swords, so there's a new entry for generic pointed broadswords before then, which only do +1 impaling.

Re: Thr Damage of Swords
 

As a general rule of thumb, a weapon with a single edge is more resilient (below resolution) and easier to make (lower cost) than one with two, but the tip can't be designed as well for stabbing*. Having a curve to the blade has a similar effect, and can exacerbate this. I have no good idea why there are some straight single-bladed weapons that suggest using the Thrusting Broadsword statistics, however. My best guess is that the authors wanted to convey that historical weapons weren't as clear-cut as the weapon tables would have you think.

*Although from what I understand there may actually be some decently-reliable tests out there that show katanas getting comparable or better stabbing results than double-edged broadswords. The only one I saw wasn't all that reliable IMO, however, as the katana maintained its form throughout the stab while the broadsword bent significantly (it sprung back to its original form just fine, but that doesn't look like a reliable battlefield weapon to me).

Two reasons - system resolution, and that the Low Tech authors were apparently required to keep the old weapons in. The Longsword is the more historical version of the Bastard Sword, but they couldn't give it the same damage (as it weighed and cost less) as that weapon, so either the swing or thrust had to take a hit.