Weapon weight and attack speed

[VIVIT]

In "A Matter of Inches" (MA110), it's suggested that weapon Min. ST relative to wielder ST (using the same SSRT-like progression as used by readiness penalties) should modify the cumulative penalty for multiple parries, and that this should replace the blanket halving of that penalty for fencing weapons. It's listed as "highly optional" but I absolutely love the idea because it does away with a special case and makes the melee weapon rules more generic.

What the sidebar doesn't say anything about is Rapid Strike. This feels like the logical next step. Lighter weapons should be easier to attack with than heavier ones. This models how knife attacks often go down in real life: ambush, rush in close, make Caesar salad. You can do this with AOA (Double), but you can also do it with a AOA (Double) and a broadsword. As long as you're strong enough to wield a weapon without any readiness penalty, differences in attack speed are apparently below system resolution. Personally, I think it's a bit strange to differentiate weapons according to how rapidly you can invoke their defensive application without paying the same attention to their offensive application. I'm not sure how to go about this myself, though, given the differences between the multiple parry penalty and the Rapid Strike penalty—not just the fact that one's cumulative and one's distributive, but also because one's a defense penalty and one's an attack penalty. I already feel like I'm venturing pretty far out of idiom here, so I have no idea what to try next.

One place I have found suggested rules for modeling variance in melee attack speed is in T-Bone's GLAIVE, which includes some options exploring the conceit that all weapons should ideally be Readied before every attack, assigning each weapon a "Recovery" statistic based on its weight balance, whether it's being swung or thrust, etc., and imposing a penalty based on the recovery to anyone who attempts to attack a second time before re-Readying the weapon. Those rules are for 3e, though, and make no mention of Rapid Strike anywhere, and I suspect that the reality they're supposed to model is already factored into the −6 for Rapid Strike, bringing us back around to the Matter of Inches again: Basic Set gives you abrupt, discretely-graded transitions in how fast you can attack (either you don't need a Ready maneuver and can Rapid Strike at −6 per blow, or you do need a Ready maneuver and can't Rapid Strike at all) as well how deftly you can parry multiple times (either you get a fencing parry or a normal parry). "A Matter of Inches" addresses the latter issue by looking at weapon weight relative to ST, but it doesn't do the same for the former.

Has anyone else here looked into this before? This feels like the sort of thing that would show up in a Pyramid somewhere, and I can't be the first one to have cooked up house rules for it.

[Varyon]

Many GM's find it fair (and in fact Kromm has suggested such, IIRC) to allow an attack to replace a Ready. So, having 0.7x the ST necessary to readily use a weapon* calls for a -6 to use it each round, if you indeed let an attack replace a Ready (Rapid Strike for -6 and two attacks; trade one for a Ready). Arguably, as with fast-firing bows, the Ready should still call for a roll. I think I could get behind the idea of changing the Rapid Strike penalty to -5 for 1.5xMinST, -4 for 2xMinST, and -3 for 3xMinST - this isn't quite the same net effect as what's seen with Parries, but honestly is probably close enough.

So, we've got -6 for 0.7xMinST, +0 for 1x, +1 for 1.5x, +2 for 2x, and +3 for 3x. Optionally, you can smooth out the progression between 0.7x and 1x as follows:

xMinST	Penalty
0.7	-6
0.75	-5
0.8	-4
0.85	-3
0.9	-2
0.95	-1
1	0

*Based on the fact that "Requires Ready" weapons ignore that requirement if you have ST equal to 1.5xMinST. Note that, based on their weight, these weapons should really have a lower ST requirement than this...

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

What the sidebar doesn't say anything about is Rapid Strike. This feels like the logical next step.

I think it could be OK.

I suspect it was left out (it wasn't in the playtest draft, nor did anyone even suggest it in the playtest) because the game is already pretty delicate when it comes to large numbers of attacks, and rapid strike wasn't exactly built for scaling (in the way that the multiple parry penalty was) --- which is probably because it competes with Extra Attack (CP-based) already.

[Varyon]

An idea - part of why multiple parries are easier the stronger you are is because you can use less effort (relative to your peak) to move the weapon around. But if you're operating at full ST for an attack, you aren't expending less effort, you're expending the same amount (relative to your peak). So, rather than a reduced penalty for exceeding MinST, how about a reduced penalty for striking with less force? So, -6 at full ST, -5 at 0.7xST, -4 at 0.5xST, and -3 at 0.3xST... but there is no further bonus if you go below MinST. It may be appropriate to use a less-harsh progression, however. Parries are at only 25% penalty at 3xMinST; 25% of -6 is -1.5. So, you could have something like this (round fractions against the player at the end - 0.3xST means -2 for one additional attack, -3 for two, -5 for three, -6 for four, etc):

xST	Penalty
1	-6
0.9	-5.5
0.8	-5
0.7	-4.5
0.65	-4
0.55	-3.5
0.5	-3
0.4	-2.5
0.35	-2
0.3	-1.5

Rather than Trained by a Master / Weapon Master halving the penalty, it instead doubles the ST at which the above apply. So, 1xST for -3, 0.8xST for -2.5, 0.7xST for -2, and 0.6xST for -1.5.

It would need playtesting to see if it worked out alright.

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by Varyon

An idea - part of why multiple parries are easier the stronger you are is because you can use less effort (relative to your peak) to move the weapon around. But if you're operating at full ST for an attack, you aren't expending less effort, you're expending the same amount (relative to your peak). So, rather than a reduced penalty for exceeding MinST, how about a reduced penalty for striking with less force?

I think you're on to something, but I don't think it's strictly about ST. It's about follow-through.

For example, I can stab-stab-stab or slash-slash-slash with a dagger pretty fast, and I could do it as-fast with a broadsword, but the stabbing would only have dagger-level penetration, and the slashing would be a sawing-like action using a dagger-length portion of the blade. (...and the stabbing would have a tip-control skill issue, depending on grip.) Basically, I think the dynamics would technically be different based on damage type.

A quicker, dirtier, less intensive, and maybe less risk-to-game-balance way to do it would to only apply the reduced Rapid Strike penalties to Defensive Attack. (It still doesn't scale well, but that requires re-writing the Rapid Strike rules in general.)

A even-quicker, less dirty version would just be to reduce the Rapid Strike penalty for Defensive Attack, without regard to ST-vs-minST.

[VIVIT]

Originally Posted by kenclary

I think you're on to something, but I don't think it's strictly about ST. It's about follow-through.

I think follow-through is about ST -- or rather, about the force with which you strike. A pulled blow doesn't only have less penetration -- it's weaker. Different ST level deal different amounts of damage even using the same weapon, not just because it's easier to deftly move a weapon when you have sufficient strength to move its mass, but also because more strength lets you strike with more force, thereby granting deeper penetration.

[Anthony]

What there really should be is a tradeoff between damage and attack speed. A problem with using weapon weight is that damage doesn't scale all that strongly with weapon weight, it mostly scales with ST.

The easy option would be 'negate a -1 to rapid strike by taking a -1 to ST'.

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

I think follow-through is about ST -- or rather, about the force with which you strike. A pulled blow doesn't only have less penetration -- it's weaker. Different ST level deal different amounts of damage even using the same weapon, not just because it's easier to deftly move a weapon when you have sufficient strength to move its mass, but also because more strength lets you strike with more force, thereby granting deeper penetration.

That extra penetration won't happen without extra weapon length to penetrate, at least when we're talking about thrusting. (and often, getting further penetration doesn't require increased momentum, it requires more movement.) In physics terms, it's not more force (F), but it is more work (W, force times distance).

But the difference doesn't matter much, in GURPS mechanics. Either is essentially modeled by Defensive Attack (which gives less damage).

[VIVIT]

Originally Posted by Anthony

What there really should be is a tradeoff between damage and attack speed. A problem with using weapon weight is that damage doesn't scale all that strongly with weapon weight, it mostly scales with ST.

The easy option would be 'negate a -1 to rapid strike by taking a -1 to ST'.

Would that -1 count for the purposes of the Min. ST required to wield the weapon in the first place, or just for damage purposes?

[SID]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

Would that -1 count for the purposes of the Min. ST required to wield the weapon in the first place, or just for damage purposes?

The way I see it, It should account for everything, lacking the necessary minST doesn't mean you couldn't lift the weapon, it only means it’d be unwieldy for attacking.