Weapon breakage from a thrust

[cupbearer]

Hi

According to basic set if a broadsword parries a thrust from a pike it has a chance of breaking.

This seems really weird to me.

Am I understanding this properly? If so, Is there some rule somewhere that changes this?

Thx

[mlangsdorf]

You can just ignore weapon breakage.

But what's weird about the idea that using your sword as a lever against a much heavier weight might cause problems to your sword? A "good" quality TL3 GURPS sword is made of steel with a non-uniform carbon content and random impurities; it's not a TL8 piece of highly designed steel. And sure, ideally a parry matches the strong part of the parrying sword (just above the hilt) to the weakest part of the parried weapon (as far from the hilt as possible) but not all parries are ideal.

I can easily see parrying a pike by trying to sweep it aside with the tip of the sword and the leverage and torque causing a hidden fault halfway down the blade to result in a crack. It's not likely, but it could happen.

If it really bothers you, give a -1 or -2 penalty to weapon breakage if you're parrying a thrust.

[Varyon]

For more satisfying weapon breakage rules, I recommend "The Broken Blade" from Pyramid #3/87. Rather than a 1d roll it has the weapon roll against its HT; Failure here doesn't necessarily break the weapon but rather reduces its HT (making it more likely to break on future attacks; there are also optional rules for the reduced HT to make the weapon less effective) - although if HT gets too low, or if you have too bad of a failure (including a Critical Failure), the weapon will break outright.

It gets rid of weight considerations, instead using the damage being Parried to determine if there's a risk of breakage (every weapon has a safe amount of damage it can Parry without issue, going above this calls for a roll - and going too far above this penalizes the roll). Due to this, it's automatically less likely to suffer breakage when Parrying a thrusting attack rather than a swinging attack. Weapons can also suffer breakage on an attack, but this typically doesn't happen unless you're too strong for your weapon (and note this breakage chance replaces the default restriction on not being able to use more than 3x a weapon's rated ST).

It's a great article, and from what I've heard most people who try it never want to go back to the default breakage rules.

[cupbearer]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

You can just ignore weapon breakage.

But what's weird about the idea that using your sword as a lever against a much heavier weight might cause problems to your sword? A "good" quality TL3 GURPS sword is made of steel with a non-uniform carbon content and random impurities; it's not a TL8 piece of highly designed steel. And sure, ideally a parry matches the strong part of the parrying sword (just above the hilt) to the weakest part of the parried weapon (as far from the hilt as possible) but not all parries are ideal.

I can easily see parrying a pike by trying to sweep it aside with the tip of the sword and the leverage and torque causing a hidden fault halfway down the blade to result in a crack. It's not likely, but it could happen.

If it really bothers you, give a -1 or -2 penalty to weapon breakage if you're parrying a thrust.

Hmm interesting idea thanks

[cupbearer]

Originally Posted by Varyon

For more satisfying weapon breakage rules, I recommend "The Broken Blade" from Pyramid #3/87. Rather than a 1d roll it has the weapon roll against its HT; Failure here doesn't necessarily break the weapon but rather reduces its HT (making it more likely to break on future attacks; there are also optional rules for the reduced HT to make the weapon less effective) - although if HT gets too low, or if you have too bad of a failure (including a Critical Failure), the weapon will break outright.

It gets rid of weight considerations, instead using the damage being Parried to determine if there's a risk of breakage (every weapon has a safe amount of damage it can Parry without issue, going above this calls for a roll - and going too far above this penalizes the roll). Due to this, it's automatically less likely to suffer breakage when Parrying a thrusting attack rather than a swinging attack. Weapons can also suffer breakage on an attack, but this typically doesn't happen unless you're too strong for your weapon (and note this breakage chance replaces the default restriction on not being able to use more than 3x a weapon's rated ST).

It's a great article, and from what I've heard most people who try it never want to go back to the default breakage rules.

That system is alot though. I dont think it suits my needs but thank you for the suggestion

[Flowergarden]

Originally Posted by cupbearer

That system is alot though. I dont think it suits my needs but thank you for the suggestion

Maybe Generic Universal Eggplant breakage rules?
It's simpler and built on a existing mechanic of shield damage

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Flowergarden

Maybe Generic Universal Eggplant breakage rules?
It's simpler and built on a existing mechanic of shield damage

I assume you're referring to this?

That looks like a solid system, and I do like that it adapts the damage to shields rules. The core of the system, for those who aren't inclined to read the whole thing, is that weapons that Parry by their Parry Threshold (PT) or less wind up taking damage from the attack, as if the weapon were the original target. PT isn't an intrinsic attribute of the weapon - rather, it starts at 1* and gets a further +1 for each multiple of weight the attacking weapon is heavier (so +1 for x2, +2 for x3, +3 for x4, etc), plus another +1 for every 3 ST higher the attacker is than the defender. It only applies for swinging attacks - thrusting attacks won't damage the defender's weapon.

*My own inclination would be to start it at 0, so in cases where the attacking weapon isn't markedly heavier than the defending one and the attacker isn't markedly stronger than the defender, Damage to Weapons only applies with MoS 0 on the Parry.

[Flowergarden]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I assume you're referring to this?

Yes, that one

Originally Posted by Varyon

*My own inclination would be to start it at 0, so in cases where the attacking weapon isn't markedly heavier than the defending one and the attacker isn't markedly stronger than the defender, Damage to Weapons only applies with MoS 0 on the Parry.

For some reason I always thought it's MoS < PT for damage rolls, so if mos = 1 it's 0
I suppose because I just applied shield damage rules to it)
So yes, I would agree here.

Edit: Maybe even remove chance of damaging weapon if attacker isn't stronger and weapon isn't heavier by using MoS < PT and base PT = 0

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Flowergarden

For some reason I always thought it's MoS < PT for damage rolls, so if mos = 1 it's 0
I suppose because I just applied shield damage rules to it

That sounds about right, but I think it's simpler to just have the PT be listed as the MoS you need to be within for your weapon to suffer damage. Shields are a bit different in that they give a bonus, and if the bonus makes a difference, that's when the shield is struck (which works out to MoS<DB). To unify the two, have shields follow the same rules but with a base PT of DB-1. So if you've got a DB 3 shield but are fighting a foe who has an ST that is 6 higher than yours (for +2 to PT), your shield is damaged if you succeed with MoS 4 or less.

Originally Posted by Flowergarden

Edit: Maybe even remove chance of damaging weapon if attacker isn't stronger and weapon isn't heavier by using MoS < PT and base PT = 0

If you want to go this route, rather than making a special exception where you use different rules, just add a -1 to the start of each progression. This would be -1 PT if the foe has 3+ ST less than you and -1 PT if the foe's weapon is half the weight (or lighter) of yours. You could optionally have the progression continue further, mirroring the PT boosts - -1 per -3 ST, -1 for half weight, -2 for a third of weight, -3 for a fourth, etc. As you cannot have a negative MoS (that would have been a failure), a negative PT means your weapon cannot be damaged in this Parry (unless the foe is using some flavor of Annihilating Weapon, like a force sword or nanothorn blade - but in that case PT doesn't really come into play, unless using variant rules that make Annihilating Weapons deal less than full damage when Parried). Personally, I don't think I'd use this, in either form, as it will often mean that only one character in a match-up will be at risk of weapon damage.

[Flowergarden]

Originally Posted by Varyon

If you want to go this route, rather than making a special exception where you use different rules, just add a -1 to the start of each progression. This would be -1 PT if the foe has 3+ ST less than you and -1 PT if the foe's weapon is half the weight (or lighter) of yours. You could optionally have the progression continue further, mirroring the PT boosts - -1 per -3 ST, -1 for half weight, -2 for a third of weight, -3 for a fourth, etc. As you cannot have a negative MoS (that would have been a failure), a negative PT means your weapon cannot be damaged in this Parry (unless the foe is using some flavor of Annihilating Weapon, like a force sword or nanothorn blade - but in that case PT doesn't really come into play, unless using variant rules that make Annihilating Weapons deal less than full damage when Parried). Personally, I don't think I'd use this, in either form, as it will often mean that only one character in a match-up will be at risk of weapon damage.

For me weapon breakage is needed when you fighting ogres or something. When two ST 10 people fight... I don't think weapons would break that much. Even with medieval steel. Edge damage - yes. Full breakage would be more of a cumulative effect. And it's kinda is with this system. But with big ST... Scaling weapons doesn't give you additional DR, so they break sometimes too fast (never seen ST 30 person thou, can't be sure)

But it's just my take and take of everyone I play with, just said what I think for reference.
Main thing OP now knows about this rules so...