[Low-Tech] Material or quality

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Obviously an axe or a mace with a heavier head is going to do more damage, yes. But there has got to be some drawback to it as well, otherwies standard axes and maces would be made with heads that heavy.

Sorry, typo there. It's cleared up now, but what I was meaning to say was that the weight increase isn't enough to get a +1 to damage. The general rule is that you multiply the damage boost (if any) by the square root of the weight multiplier and round normally. The square root of 1.33 is around 1.15, so you need a bonus of at least +4 before that would make a difference.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

And there really should be something in the RAW. Weren't lead-filled maces used historically?

Not that I'm aware of, although it's certainly possible. I've been working on a set of rules for designing weapons in GURPS and have considered having more than just "Balanced, no bonus" and "Unbalanced, +1 to damage," but I'm not certain how to properly resolve it.

[ArchonShiva]

The d20 solution is to make a distinct Alchemical Silver (if only to explain why a silver dagger is worth so much more than its weight in silver pieces), a solution which can be imported into GURPS to fix the different issue of weapon quality, by giving it the other properties of steel, or at least bronze.

[Anthony]

A heavier weapon increases resistance to your strength, which lets you apply your muscles more efficiently, but there's an upper limit to that, and it also makes the weapon slower.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

It may be that a 5% or 10% silver alloyed with bronze or copper is preferable to a weapon coated in silver, in terms of maintenance or the like. It might also look quite nice, although my guess would be that 10% silver 90% copper will look quite like normal bronze.

Actually it often develops an interesting dark (black or purplish) patina - shibuichi in Japan, hepatizon in the Classical world.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Anthony

A heavier weapon increases resistance to your strength, which lets you apply your muscles more efficiently, but there's an upper limit to that, and it also makes the weapon slower.

I think that was the reason for the evolution of the broadsword to rapier to smallsword. A tiny shaft of metal shoved through your guts will kill you just as dead as a sharpened car door. So it often ended up with whoever stabbed fastest.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I think that was the reason for the evolution of the broadsword to rapier to smallsword. A tiny shaft of metal shoved through your guts will kill you just as dead as a sharpened car door. So it often ended up with whoever stabbed fastest.

My impression is that that sword development was caused by changes in armour fashion. A rapier isn't worth anything against an armoured foe, but as armour went out of fashion, so did broadswords.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I think that was the reason for the evolution of the broadsword to rapier to smallsword.

Nah, there's probably some metallurgy issues involved (not that easy to make a long thin stabby thing that doesn't just break), but mostly it's a matter of where the weapon was intended to be used. A broadsword is a battlefield weapon (a 19th century cavalry saber is a broadsword), a smallsword is a weapon for court duels (and is the size it is for political reasons), a rapier is what happens when there's no limit on how long a sword you're allowed to carry.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

My impression is that that sword development was caused by changes in armour fashion. A rapier isn't worth anything against an armoured foe, but as armour went out of fashion, so did broadswords.

Yup, your thoughts mirror my (lazy) research.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I think that was the reason for the evolution of the broadsword to rapier to smallsword. A tiny shaft of metal shoved through your guts will kill you just as dead as a sharpened car door. So it often ended up with whoever stabbed fastest.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

My impression is that that sword development was caused by changes in armour fashion. A rapier isn't worth anything against an armoured foe, but as armour went out of fashion, so did broadswords.

There is no such thing as a sword "evolution". The kinds of swords used on the battlefield have changed very little for thousands of years. No sword can cut through armour and the only sword that can stab through armour are specialised weapons such as the estoc/tuck. Whether armour was common or not had little influence over which swords were chosen by soldiers. If you chose a sword to fight someone in armour then you were likely to lose. Polearms were king on the battlefield. A sword is just a sidearm, like a pistol in modern warfare.

[Anders]

Dan, as one of the authors of Low-Tech, can you tell us something about the original question?