Question batch #1

[Orochi-art]

Here is first batch of questions that are bugging me.
(it would be great if you could start your replies with "Question X" so others can instantly know to which question you are referring to.

Question #1: Low-Tech Book: Blunt Trauma and Edged Weapons – Using this optional rule cutting weapon will have its damage type changed from cutting into crushing damage unless it can exceed twice the armor’s DR. (example: DR 6 plate armor is still DR 6 but you need to deal (exceed DRx2) 13 damage with a sword to deal cutting damage type. If you deal 12 or less; damage type will be crushing.)
When using cutting weapons, with crushing damage type, against chainmail and other flexible armor do I use armor’s full DR or do they gain -1/-2 vs. crushing depending on the armor in question?

Question #2: Low-Tech Book: Longsword damage typo? - Bastard sword and Thrusting Bastard Sword have +1 increase in both swing and thrust damage when comparing one-handed and two-handed use. That would imply that using a one-handed weapon in two hands gives you an extra “umph” that gives you +1 damage. When comparing tables for Longsword it gains increase only in thrust damage.

Question #3: Low-Tech Book: Longsword vs. Bastard sword reach – This question comes from my knowledge or lack of knowledge and assumptions. Also I know sword classification is opening good, old can of worms and there are different types of classifications.

When speaking of two handed swords I classify them in following manner:
- Longswords & bastard swords: 40-50 inch – sizes were comparable; bastard sword was little heavier
- great swords: 44-55 inch - Claymore – they required two hands to use, but are shorter than what we know as true two-handed swords.
- true two-handed swords: up to 5’10” - 70 inch - famous german zweihander

Longsword reach
swing 1
thrust 1,2

Bastard Sword reach
swing 1,2
thrust 2

Great sword reach
swing 1,2
thrust 2

How come longsword can only swing at reach 1 and how come bastard sword can only thrust at reach 2? If I use my classification how come bastard sword uses greatsword reach tables? In my mind bastard sword is similar to longsword, and book also classifies longsword as light Bastard Sword (low-tech, page 58). What were the bases for those statistics used in Low-Tech book?

Question #4: The Deadly Spring – Crossbows - I really liked that article and how it puts bows and crossbows in line with other, more modern weapons like guns and rifles (Instead of damage based of user’s Strength). It puts them all in same format. It gives cohesion to ranged weapons tables.

I can’t go into complex math so here goes my question, or favor to ask.
There is only one medieval crossbow and that one requires windlass/cranequin.

I need statistics for medieval crossbows, both wood and steel, based on ST 10 human.
Crossbow #1: two-hand pull
Crossbow #2: two-hand pull with stirrup
Crossbow #3: goat’s foot

So those are 6 crossbows (3 steel-limbed, 3 wooden-limbed)

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Orochi-art

Question #4: The Deadly Spring – Crossbows - I really liked that article and how it puts bows and crossbows in line with other, more modern weapons like guns and rifles (Instead of damage based of user’s Strength). It puts them all in same format. It gives cohesion to ranged weapons tables.

I can’t go into complex math so here goes my question, or favor to ask.
There is only one medieval crossbow and that one requires windlass/cranequin.

I need statistics for medieval crossbows, both wood and steel, based on ST 10 human.
Crossbow #1: two-hand pull
Crossbow #2: two-hand pull with stirrup
Crossbow #3: goat’s foot

So those are 6 crossbows (3 steel-limbed, 3 wooden-limbed)

Two-hand pull with no help is 8xBL, which is only 160 lbs - that probably includes the stirrup. If you have to span a crossbow using two hands but no way to brace it, you're probably looking at not much more than what you can pull with your arms, which is 2.5xBL - 50 lbs. This will get you nearly nothing for a medieval crossbow. Note that the sample provided was 750 lbs or so, and not terribly impressive due to short stroke and inefficient limbs. A goat's foot doubles Basic Lift, pushing draw weight supported to 320 lbs.

ST 10 is pretty poor for this sort of weapon. To span the sample Xbow (750-ish lbs) with a goat's foot you're looking at about 47 lbs of Basic lift, or ST 15 (15.3, but close enough).

Using the equivalent of Strongbow for Crossbows, you can span the crossbow with ST 13.

Thanks for the kind words about the article - I assume you have the v3 spreadsheets that take the math out of your hands?

I'll throw some designs together after work tonight.

[Varyon]

#1: I don't think there's any official ruling on this, so it's up to the GM. I'd personally go with the reduced DR.

#2: This is likely an issue of resolution - the longsword (thanks to its lighter weight and shorter reach) shouldn't do as much damage as the bastard sword when swung. A blanket -1, however, probably overstates the effect, and would also leave the longsword doing less damage than the lighter, shorter broadsword, so they opted to only have the -1 apply to two-handed use.

#3: Another resolution issue. You basically end up with the progression Broadsword->Longsword->Bastard Sword->Greatsword, and the designers opted to give the Bastard Sword a longer Reach than the Longsword. There's not really any place for something between Longsword and Greatsword, however, so they opted to go with the same Reach statistics as the Greatsword.

[Orochi-art]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

ST 10 is pretty poor for this sort of weapon.

I assume you have the v3 spreadsheets that take the math out of your hands?

I have spreadsheets but Excel and I don't get along. Even with spreadsheets being automated there are too many options to take into consideration during construction.


How come ST 10 is poor? There is a certain phobia on these forums when it comes to giving characters higher stats :)

I always imagined that crossbows were made in a way that you could give average Joe a crossbow in hand and with little force he could load it. Stirrup, belt hook, goat's foot, and in the end windlass increased the maximum draw strength. That being said I imagined most crossbowmen as regular people with ST 11-12 after longer conditioning to draw the string.

https://archive.org/stream/Book_of_t...e/n81/mode/2up This is what I had in mind when it came to two-hand pull without stirrup. Maybe this has same effect as drawing with it. Dunno. Hope it helps.

Also thanks in advance.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Orochi-art

How come ST 10 is poor? There is a certain phobia on these forums when it comes to giving characters higher stats :)

1) When talking about crossbows, you're talking about trained military (often mercenaries) or athletic hunters - definitely out of the Average Joe argument zone.

2) The whole point of crossbows is being able to trade a longer draw time for more punch, while not suffering from having to hold the heavier draw.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Bruno

1) When talking about crossbows, you're talking about trained military (often mercenaries) or athletic hunters - definitely out of the Average Joe argument zone.

ST is obviously trainable. I don't think the cultists object to fairly high ST values.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I don't think the cultists object to fairly high ST values.

Unless it's the Cult of Low Strength. They might object strenuously (as strenuously as they're able anyway).

[Noctifer]

Originally Posted by Bruno

1) When talking about crossbows, you're talking about trained military (often mercenaries) or athletic hunters - definitely out of the Average Joe argument zone.

2) The whole point of crossbows is being able to trade a longer draw time for more punch, while not suffering from having to hold the heavier draw.

This is somewhat counter to how crossbows proliferated historically. One of the 'social issues' that resulted from the use of crossbows was that it was perceived as too easy to use for the average man and too deadly (i.e., it could penetrate armor and kill nobles easier, which was Bad (tm) ). And most medieval fighting men were not professional soldiers: they were farmers conscripted into service as part of their liege's feudal levy.

GURPS doesn't really reflect this, as is. Whereas the crossbow came to replace the bow in the late middle ages because it was more easily used by the common soldier and more deadly than a bow, a GURPS archer is far, far better served equipping himself with a bow rather than a crossbow.

[Mathulhu]

Originally Posted by Noctifer

...a GURPS archer is far, far better served equipping himself with a bow rather than a crossbow.

...unless he wants a higher skill for less investment (Crossbow is DX/E Bow is DX/A), more damage (Crossbow is Thrust+4 the Longbow is Thrust +2), longer effective range (Acc 4 vs 3).
In my experience I see lots of crossbow users and only a handful of bow users. The crossbow men often use it to augment another fighting style or less combat focused characters, while the bow users were dedicated archers.
This fits my understanding of historical examples of archers.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Noctifer

GURPS doesn't really reflect this, as is.

It does; Crossbow is an Easy skill instead of Average. Crossbows also do more damage for the ST (thr+4 instead of thr+1), higher accuracy (4 vs 2), and have a longer range (x20/25 instead of x15/20). Also, Crossbows have lower min ST and Bulk and 60% of the ammo weight.

Rate of fire is the only real advantage of a bow. With one turn of Aim, it's one shot per four turns versus one shot per six turns.

Given the +3 damage from the crossbow, the bow doesn't even really have an advantage in "DPS" for the extra ammo expenditure. After one minute of firing, the bowmen have thrown 1.5 pounds of ammo downrange to do 37.5 points of damage against DR 0. The crossbowmen have thrown 0.6 pounds of ammo downrange to do 55 points of damage against DR 0. Against DR 4 mail, the numbers drop to 2.5 points of damage per minute for the bow (you have to roll a 6 to do one point of damage) versus 16.7 for the crossbow.

a GURPS archer is far, far better served equipping himself with a bow rather than a crossbow.

Not in the context of a massed military formation. The extra damage is important when you're facing armor (as in your knight-threatening quotes), the extra range is a tactical advantage, and the lower logistics requirements also help an army.

And quite possibly not even in the case of a D&D-style adventuring party. One fairly common GURPS party-munchkin tactic is for _everyone_ to carry a crossbow as heavy as they can crank for one volley when closing. The reload time is irrelevant here, as that never happens in combat, so you can use even stronger crossbows that require mechanical assistance (effective +4 ST). The extra damage becomes even more important in a short combat where the RoF of the bow doesn't get to shine, and against armored foes it also becomes important.

What makes you say a GURPS bow is "far, far better"? Certainly, bows win the Rule of Cool. No right-thinking Legolas would use a crossbow. But only because he'll look cooler, not because the game stats are better.