[LT] Sheaths for melee weapons

[Lupo]

Sheaths cause a lot of trouble if you use the 1/3 - 20% rules.

In our campaigns, we just assume that the weight and cost of Sheaths are negligible, and that characters always have appropriate sheaths for their weapons (unless, of course, they just escaped from prison or something).

And, if for some reason I really wanted to be detailed and accurate about sheaths, I'd rule that they weigh 1 lb and cost $50, in addition to the weapon (in order to avoid all the recalculations and weird stuff that happens if you mess with listed weapon costs and weights).

I never understood why GURPS went into so much trouble just for accounting for sheaths.

[jacobmuller]

Whatever weapon you buy, if it's meant to have a sheath, it's included. But if you lose, damage or otherwise need to buy a sheath, then it's 20% of the cost of that weapon. If you buy a fancy sword, they give you a better sheath.
Isn't there an option for poorer quality, lighter sheaths and the detriment to weapon health?

A sheath that weighs 50% of the weapon weight does seem excessive - must go weigh my sword & wooden sheath... 2.2lbs total, 1.76lb sword, 0.44lb sheath. I've never done that before - never even thought about the weight. But that's 4/1 not 2/1

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Lupo

I never understood why GURPS went into so much trouble just for accounting for sheaths.

Because weapon weights are too high and GURPS needed a mechanism to stop having to revise all the weapon weights down to historical values.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Because weapon weights are too high and GURPS needed a mechanism to stop having to revise all the weapon weights down to historical values.

Are they really that high? I tought that a broadsword's weight was 1.1 - 1.3 kgs, and "3 lbs" was a good approximation for it. Does a broadsword actually weighs just 900g ?

Even if they are too high, I think a better approach would be revise weapon weights, and keep sheaths weight/cost separate, to avoid all the confusion with Fine swords, odds of breakage and so on.
Also because not all weapons have sheaths, so their (unrealistically high, I suppose) weight won't be reduced by the "sheath" rule...

In your opinion, which weapons should be reduced in weight, and by how much?
Or alternatively, do you happen to have a houseruled weapon tables you use in your games? :)

[DanHoward]

Generally speaking, any weapon intended to be wielded in one hand rarely weighs more than 2.5 lbs with many being less than 2 lbs. Doesn't matter whether it is a sword, mace or axe. There are exceptions but this is a good rule of thumb.

Here is a good example regarding maces. I started this when I discovered that Oakeshott was wrongly being used as a source for mace weights in Low-Tech.
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=15182

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Generally speaking, any weapon intended to be wielded in one hand rarely weighs more than 2.5 lbs with many being less than 2 lbs. Doesn't matter whether it is a sword, mace or axe. There are exceptions but this is a good rule of thumb.

Here is a good example regarding maces. I started this when I discovered that Oakeshott was wrongly being used as a source for mace weights in Low-Tech.
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=15182

If you take a look at some of the scientific papers written on baseball bats, they fully agree with you, and even for a 2 handed bat the ideal weight seems to be (Height/3 + 7 oz), which put even two handed bats under 2.5 pounds.

http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/bats-new/batw8.html

The next site/PDF is another paper by the above researcher addressing moment of inertia and the benefits of top-loading a bat, it looks like if he keeps going along this line of research he's going to conclude that the ideal design of a baseball bat for increasing distance is going to look like a mace, fancy that. *grin*

http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/P...wingWeight.pdf

[Gudiomen]

Originally Posted by Lupo

Are they really that high? I tought that a broadsword's weight was 1.1 - 1.3 kgs, and "3 lbs" was a good approximation for it. Does a broadsword actually weighs just 900g ?

Mind you, if you're using metric in your GURPS games, you're converting "aproximately" so a 3lb weapon becomes 1,5kg. Which I've come to understand is quite heavy for a broadsword.

Because of the conversion rule (necessary aproximation, otherwise precise conversion would be a nightmare, and you'd need a nastier formula for encumbrance and BL) the weights in kg were quite weird before. Now they seem more reasonable, discount 1/3 weight for sheathes.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

Mind you, if you're using metric in your GURPS games, you're converting "aproximately" so a 3lb weapon becomes 1,5kg. Which I've come to understand is quite heavy for a broadsword.

I am not converting approximately - I am converting exactly, to a unit which could be called "GURPS kg" and is assumed to be exactly equal to 2 lbs.

Such a conversion is "exact" because I also convert all the BL in the same way.

So a ST 10 character's Basic Lift of 20 lbs get converted to 10 kg, and the Broadsword at 1.5 kg weighs exactly the same proportion of his Basic Lift.

E.g., during play we say "your BL is 10 kg" and "this broadsword weighs 1.5 kg", although we know that technically 20 lbs are a little bit more than 9 kg, and 3 lbs are about 1.35 kg... if you change all the units it doesn't matter.

In any case, this seems beside the point - GURPS "official" weights are expressed in lbs, not "approximated" in kg.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Lupo

I am not converting approximately - I am converting exactly, to a unit which could be called "GURPS kg" and is assumed to be exactly equal to 2 lbs.

Such a conversion is "exact" because I also convert all the BL in the same way.

So a ST 10 character's Basic Lift of 20 lbs get converted to 10 kg, and the Broadsword at 1.5 kg weighs exactly the same proportion of his Basic Lift.

E.g., during play we say "your BL is 10 kg" and "this broadsword weighs 1.5 kg", although we know that technically 20 lbs are a little bit more than 9 kg, and 3 lbs are about 1.35 kg... if you change all the units it doesn't matter.

In any case, this seems beside the point - GURPS "official" weights are expressed in lbs, not "approximated" in kg.

It's not besides the point if the numbers are supposed to be semi-realistic.

The real world weights for a normal one-handed sword, what GURPS calls Broadsword, are going to be under 1 kg, with some extra weight possible in the hilt as long as the balance stays close to the hand.
Blades which weigh in at 1.5+ kg are hand-and-a-half swords, what GURPS calls Bastard swords, which requires a different style of usage.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

It's not besides the point if the numbers are supposed to be semi-realistic.

Apparently I wasn't able to explain myself...

Gudiomen's remark about kg and lbs is besides the point, because when considering GURPS stats, kg and approximation are irrelevant - only the official, original weight in lbs should be considered.
It is besides the point which "trick" people in "metric" countries use to adapt GURPS to their needs. We should just discuss the original weights in lbs when talking about realistic weight.

The real world weights for a normal one-handed sword, what GURPS calls Broadsword, are going to be under 1 kg, with some extra weight possible in the hilt as long as the balance stays close to the hand.

I am not entirely convinced that an average Broadsword weighs under 1 kg. I am not a weapon collector, but the normal one-handed swords I wielded (12th century) were quite broad and heavy. They were shorter than hand-and-a-half swords, but not so much lighter.

Blades which weigh in at 1.5+ kg are hand-and-a-half swords, what GURPS calls Bastard swords, which requires a different style of usage.

You are absolutely right, yet GURPS makes no claim that one-handed swords weigh 1.5+ kg. According to GURPS, they weigh 3 lbs (1.35 kg).
IMHO, if one has to choose between "2 lbs" and "3 lbs" for the average weight of a Broadsword, 3 lbs would be a better pick.
Of course, 2.5 lbs (1.12 kg) might be an even better choice.
Note, however, than a certain amount of approximation is needed, for ease of play - I think that weapon weights, whenever possible, should be rounded to "half lbs".
Especially since they are meant to be "average weights", I see little point in declaring that GURPS Broadswords weighs "2.15 lbs" or "2.43 lbs"... make it either 2 or 2.5, please :)

==

Wikipedia lists 2.5 lbs as the average weight of a 36" long "Arming sword" (apparently, the correct name for what GURPS calls a broadsword), and 3.1 lbs as the average weight of a 41"-47" long Longsword.
These weights and lenghts are unsourced, though, so I can't say if they are accurate... Does anybody know of a reliable source with "actual" weights of historical swords?