Adding Hooks to Swords

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

It's a costly addition useful only for showy experts. It will always be easier to simply cut your opponent's hands off than disarm them.
Why make the already difficult maneuver even harder for those willing to plunk down CPs?

My bad, I was thinking of something that looked a little more like a war hammer or the narrow side of a halberd. Rereading the OP it sounds like something that would just be a bother, would get in the way in the field and would look ugly on display. Arab daggers have hooks though and I can't understand what's with that; that looks even odder then on a sword.

But yeah. Bloodless disarming is cinematic. Is there even any real technique for that?

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

My bad, I was thinking of something that looked a little more like a war hammer or the narrow side of a halberd. Rereading the OP it sounds like something that would just be a bother, would get in the way in the field and would look ugly on display. Arab daggers have hooks though and I can't understand what's with that; that looks even odder then on a sword.

But yeah. Bloodless disarming is cinematic. Is there even any real technique for that?

I'm not sure bloodless disarming is necessarily cinematic, its just more difficult than just ending a fight by damaging your opponent beyond his ability to continue. And anything that makes you life more difficult in a fight makes the fight more dangerous for you.

Special circumstances might apply making it a more worthwhile tactic. e.g you really, really can't risk killing them, they are so well armoured that disarming is an optimal way to end a fight, etc, etc.

Ultimately winning is winning, and if you can win by hooking and tripping and disarming etc, then that's a win. I just can't help but think though with all else being equal winning by I stick my sword into him until he stops moving in a way I don't like, is on balance easier.

[dagothdoom]

The scabbard problem can be avoided by having a hook to simply hold it in place. While it is more likely to fall off if upside down, it makes it easier to pull out and can be easily found or made.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by malloyd

That's the solution really. If you don't think Shaolin hook sword, but something more like basket hilt with ridiculously long hooked quillion, or Sai-like think with one of the side pieces with an angle bend in it, much the same thing, there's no reason to think it matters to thrust.

Sure that works, though you won't have the benefit of the sword's reach.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

That is the problem: the things which are most important to most sword-carriers (what will people think when they see me wearing it, is it comfortable, can I afford it, how much work is it to keep ready) are hard to represent in a game, while things which rarely matter, like slightly better hand protection, are easy to represent. In the end its just a game and I should really just relax.

PCs aren't most people and care about different things.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I'm not sure bloodless disarming is necessarily cinematic, its just more difficult than just ending a fight by damaging your opponent beyond his ability to continue. And anything that makes you life more difficult in a fight makes the fight more dangerous for you.

Special circumstances might apply making it a more worthwhile tactic. e.g you really, really can't risk killing them, they are so well armoured that disarming is an optimal way to end a fight, etc, etc.

Ultimately winning is winning, and if you can win by hooking and tripping and disarming etc, then that's a win. I just can't help but think though with all else being equal winning by I stick my sword into him until he stops moving in a way I don't like, is on balance easier.

Winning is achieving your win condition. Anything that doesn't do that, no matter how badly it works out for the other guy, is not a win.

Realistically people don't operate like GURPS fighters for whom the relative difficulty of moves don't vary much. The difficulty of disarming has been overestimated to an absurd degree. It's not cinematic, "guy who disarms people as a default move" is cinematic.

[Flyndaran]

Irrational style is not cinematic, merely not recommended.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Sindri

The difficulty of disarming has been overestimated to an absurd degree.

Not really. In order to disarm someone, you have two choices. First, you can attack the hand so they are no longer capable of holding the weapon. Secondly, you can apply more force to their weapon than they are able to apply to keep hold of the weapon.

Method 2, unless the target flinches or otherwise fails to maintain a proper grip, isn't really possible unless the target weapon has something you can grab hold of (such as a hook...), a smooth blade just doesn't have the friction to let you pull the weapon away.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Irrational style is not cinematic, merely not recommended.

I presumed "and isn't just crazy" didn't need to be pointed out but apparently it does.

[gilbertocarlos]

3 pages, and I'm yet to see the answer to the original question:

If for 3-5% extra on the cost you can have a hook on your sword while keeping both it's standard cutting and thrusting attacks(I.E. you can still cut and thrust as a standard thrusting broadsword/greatsword):

A) Where would this hook be?
B) Why is there no real world example of that?
C) Shouldn't it have a penalty on things like fast draw, impaling attacks or cutting attacks?

[jason taylor]

In point of fact disarming isn't really a technique for fighting at all. It is a technique for avoiding grossing out the audience with the results of such an inherently gooey weapon as a sword.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Arab daggers have hooks though and I can't understand what's with that; that looks even odder then on a sword.

Um, no. Some Arabian daggers have scabbards that are hooked. That's just a decorative style. The blades inside are just curved knives of a fairly practical design--at least every example I've ever seen.

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

If for 3-5% extra on the cost you can have a hook on your sword while keeping both it's standard cutting and thrusting attacks(I.E. you can still cut and thrust as a standard thrusting broadsword/greatsword):

A) Where would this hook be?
B) Why is there no real world example of that?
C) Shouldn't it have a penalty on things like fast draw, impaling attacks or cutting attacks?

Well, if you place the hook 6 or so inches down the blade, protruding from one side, it shouldn't effect impaling or cutting attacks, the blade can stab deep enough to reach any organs and you can always cut with the other side of the blade. GURPS makes no distinction between single and double edged blades.

Fast Draw is a good point but there are ways around that in scabbards design.

As for B): No society has deemed the ability to perform a hook technique worth the cost and weight. Especially when axes, warhammers, and polearms have been available--and are cheaper and easier to make then swords.