Question batch #1

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Noctifer

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.

As Mathulhu points out, the crossbow is superior in terms of stats that make shots count in Basic rules. (Under The Deadly Spring, they're not necessarily better in damage.)

The one place bows are superior is rate of fire...which looks really important when you're running a hugely strong, absurdly skilled Heroic Archer PC (with the benefit of over-the-top Basic damage levels and probably AP arrowheads) who likes using his bow in near-melee situations. Which is an incredibly bad model for historical combat environments. Even so, the elite longbowmen kept their longbows and their value...crossbows were useful for the vast majority who didn't have that kind of training.



Tangent: Why no 'crossbows' with long, vertical spans? A vertical span would make arms comparable to regular bows more manageable than the horizontal arrangement, allowing for a longer, more efficient draw. They'd be less handy than a more normal crossbow and heavier than a bow, but seem like they might perform better than either.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Noctifer

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.

My understanding is that they were most heavily used in the military by mercenaries (professional soldiers) or small specialized units, not by armies handing one out to every conscript, like rifles in WW2. If there was a period where this happened, I'd love to know about it because I really want to read about it.

They were also used by nobles as hunting weapons (very light examples) because of ease of use from horseback, plus power of a small compact crossbow, which can't be equaled from a similarly small bow. But here the restriction to nobility was, I understand, as much a function of how legal hunting was as how expensive the bow was, not out of fear that hordes of commoners would mow down every deer. That was already illegal in many places.

[Ulzgoroth]

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 :)

I've never seen anyone argue that above-10 strength was unreasonable, except perhaps for particularly small characters.

Not all stats are normalized the same way...

Originally Posted by Orochi-art

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.

You don't have to be strong to use a crossbow, but if you want to use a crossbow that isn't pitifully weak you need to either be very strong (because crossbows are usually less effective for their draw strength than bows) or use major mechanical aids.

[Railstar]

Question #1: I would use full DR because of draw-cuts – a slice across the target can be capable of cutting through flesh and into bone (say 4 points of cutting damage, x 1.5 for cutting modifier = 6 HP of injury = enough to cripple an arm or leg) is not necessarily going to inflict massive bruising against a cut-resistant target.

Question #2: I think the longsword not gaining bonus swing damage when used two-handed is deliberate. The longsword does not suffer the 0U Parry when used one-handed, so it already has an advantage over the bastard sword. I think doing less swing damage than a thrusting bastard sword is there to avoid the longsword being generally better than the bastard sword and making it obsolete.

Question #3: The terms “longsword” and “bastard sword” are labels of convenience, not meant to be a perfect match of real-world sword names. A medieval knight might see a GURPS bastard sword and a GURPS greatsword and call them both “swords of war”, despite there being a size-difference between the two. The terminology that works for historians is not necessarily the terminology that works for game-designers.

Going by your classifications, 40-50 inches for longswords and bastard swords allows a variation of 10 inches; 25% of 40 inches and 20% of 50 inches, this is not an insignificant difference. Think of the statistic line for “longsword” as representing a sword closer to 40 inches, and for “bastard sword” as representing a sword closer to 50 inches (in the 44-50 inch region where according to your classifications longsword & greatsword overlap). It's not a bug, it's a feature, because it allows “smaller longsword” and “bigger longsword”, even if it doesn't quite use those terms.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Use the armor's full DR - treating the cutting weapon as crushing to reduce DR up until it achieves DRx2 (and which DR?) and becomes cutting again is too much calculation in play.

Originally Posted by Railstar

Question #1: I would use full DR because of draw-cuts – a slice across the target can be capable of cutting through flesh and into bone (say 4 points of cutting damage, x 1.5 for cutting modifier = 6 HP of injury = enough to cripple an arm or leg) is not necessarily going to inflict massive bruising against a cut-resistant target.

This is my take too. A sword is not as effective at dealing bashing damage as a mace is. If you're using the cutting edge of the sword, and the armor effectively blunts it, you do not get a bonus to crushing damage.

[Dustin]

Originally Posted by Orochi-art

Question #1: 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?

Use the armor's full DR - treating the cutting weapon as crushing to reduce DR up until it achieves DRx2 (and which DR?) and becomes cutting again is too much calculation in play.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Use the armor's full DR - treating the cutting weapon as crushing to reduce DR up until it achieves DRx2 (and which DR?) and becomes cutting again is too much calculation in play.

You'd use the armor's DR vs Cut to determine how much damage is needed to avoid conversion to Cr. Default GURPS rules are "Subtract DR, minimum damage is 0." The "edge protection" in LT adds in "If damage is Cut, reduce it to Cr if basic damage doesn't exceed twice DR." Adding in "If armor is reduced against Cr, use this value to resist the above Cr damage" isn't too much more complexity. There could be the odd edge case where you'd have done more Injury if you'd rolled 1 point less damage, however.