[ RETURN TO THE ARTICLE ]

From: "Shawn Close"
Subject: Hand weapon design
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 01:08:16 GMT

I've been fiddling around with the muscle powered type of weapons i.e. swords, axes, maces, and I've been wondering what exactly makes a weapon two handed and at what strength above the normal minimum would a person or creature be able to use a normal two hand weapon with only one hand and have it still be balanced. Also would a broadsword or bastard sword be considered a two hand weapon for a person or creature with a low strength?

Does anyone know if there is a formula or guidelines that are followed for designing hand weapons like swords and axes etc., like there is in the Vehicles book for designing guns?

Or will there be anything like that in the upcoming Low Tech sourcebook?

If anyone knows a link to a webpage that might have more information on the designing of held weapons for the Gurps system, or any other system for that matter, please post that as well.

Thanks for your time,
Shawn Close

"Shawn Close" wrote ...

Does anyone know if there is a formula or guidelines that are followed for designing hand weapons like swords and axes etc., like there is in the Vehicles book for designing guns?

http://www.omnology.com/gurps-sw.html

According to said rules, I can make a "Broadsword" that does sw+2 cu and thr+2 im damage and has a reach of 1,2. It costs more cash ($1,300), but it's still an "average broadsword". I could still add +2 damage and make it unbreakable on a parry. If I didn't want the extra reach, it's $1,200 and still able to get up to sw+4 and thr+4 damage if the price is pumped. To make it even MORE absurd, the weapon would weigh 5(!) pounds and be considered one-handed(!!!!!) with a mere min ST of 11!!!!!!!!!! AND it would still be a "sword" subject to the rules as a "balanced" weapon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, it costs a LOT of GURPS$ to get to this point, but it's a purely Hero game style of "limit" with no basis in the actual weapon. Believe it or not, there ARE some limits on how much hack one can pack into a certain design of weapon, and the historical norms exist for a reason.

"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote...

According to said rules, I can make a "Broadsword" that does sw+2 cu and thr+2 im damage and has a reach of 1,2. It costs more ($1,300), but it's still an "average broadsword".

But I question your math. The cost seems to be ((+2)+(+2))x$100+$300+$100 (Damage+Base+Range)=$800. This is one more sw damage than a standard Broadsword and an extra hex of Reach "for" 2lbs and $200. The typical GURPS Broadsword actually works out to the same weight, cost, and MinST.

I could still add +2 damage and make it unbreakable on a parry

To make it even MORE absurd, the weapon would weigh 5(!) pounds and be considered one-handed(!!!!!) with a mere min ST of 11!!!!!!!!!! AND it would still be a "sword" subject to the rules as a "balanced" weapon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, it costs a LOT of GURPS$ to get to this point, but it's a purely Hero game style of "limit" with no basis in the actual weapon. Believe it or not, there ARE some limits on how much hack one can pack into a certain design of weapon, and the historical norms exist for a reason.

For a simple, quick system it's pretty damn good. The weapon you described above isn't bad if you make it unbalanced. The max allowed by these rules is sw+3 cut, thr+3 imp, MinST 12 TH, Reach 1,2, 7lbs, $900 (which can be made VF as per standard rules). Which is, not suprisingly, a Typical GURPS Thrusting Greatsword.

There might be abusive combinations possible but, in general, the system seems to work. If you see any problems with it, those problems are with the GURPS system.

In article , "Mark K Styles" wrote:

Agreed, the 5lb Weight Level in Step Four should really be amended to include the line "If you make it one-handed, it is considered an unbalanced weapon." That would work better with existing GURPS weapons.

bjm10@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:

How many actual one-handed five-pound swords of any type have you come across that aren't just lousy "reproductions"?

There is a difference between possible and historically attested, and an weapon design system ought to be able to generate the first range rather than the second. It's likely certain designs are not historically attested because they don't work very well, but I'd strongly doubt that is always the case.

MA Lloyd (malloy00@io.com)

malloy00@fnord.io.com (MA Lloyd) wrote

There is a difference between possible and historically attested, and an weapon design system ought to be able to generate the first range rather than the second. It's likely certain designs are not

"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote...

In that case, then the system should also model the effects of these "possible" design in a matter that would match how they would actually function in reality so as not to merely inflame weak spots in the game system.

Take the sword you first mentioned with a few corrections, the price and the balance (unbalancing really should be added to the rules to make the rules balanced). It was sw+2 cut/thr+2 imp, R1-2/2, OneH MinST11 UnBal, 5lbs, $800. Now, you can certainly build it but will it be useful and therefore become popular? The easiest way to discuss it might be a comparison to a Standard GURPS Broadsword same way you did when you posted it. What do you gain/give up in comparing a, umm, Thrusting Longsword (note: name for convenience only) to a Thrusting Broadsword? You gain one point of Swing Damage and one hex of Swing Reach. You lose your ability to thrust at Reach 1, and add $200 to the price, 2lbs to the weight, a turn to Ready and a point to the MinST. Admittedly without the turn to Ready to looks closer, but even if it was balanced losing the ability to thrust at the near hexes is big.

What would probably happen is that after a few uses either in battle or training , or, maybe, a related death, one would stop using the Thrusting Longsword. The same trial and error process that would occur in RL; the good is kept (and becomes known as The Right Way To Do Things(tm)) and the bad thrown out (and becomes known as Absurd, Outside The Limits, or The Way Things Were Never Done, or or is destined to be thought of as Simply "Lousy Reproductions" Not Just Bad Sword Designs). But they are _selected from all the possible combinations_.

(BTW, somewhat in the realm of selection, I really like the term "gress-neutral". It's descriptive and concise, at least after the first time seeing it and not immediatly recognizing it.)

mkstyles@sk.sympatico.caNADA (Mark K Styles) wrote in

Take the sword you first mentioned with a few corrections, the price and the balance (unbalancing really should be added to the rules to make the rules balanced). It was sw+2 cut/thr+2 imp, R1-2/2, OneH

"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote...

Ah, so first one rewrites the method _ad hoc_ to show that the method *AS WRITTEN* is unflawed! The method says nothing at all about balance.

That said let's run the swords again, without UnBalancing. The created sword is the nearly the same but is now 1H Bal, not 1H UnBal. The adding $200, 2lbs, and +1 MinST are relatively negligible disadvantages to the created sword. This leaves +1 Reach and +1 Swing Damage vs. No Thrust to adjacent hexes. These are about balanced (slightly in favour of positive, though, if you allow a backwards step as a Step, which we tend to do out of habit). This is a weapon that does look like it should not be equal/superior to a Broadsword, so there might be a problem with game balance/perceptions of realism that need correcting. Looking at existing GURPS weapons, it should be UnBalanced. Now, +1 Reach and +1 Swing Damage vs. No Close Thrust and UnBalanced. Much better, IMO.

So, as written, the system does have that one problem that is obvious once pointed out. But, why toss a good system when one tiny addition can fix a problem that was relatively small to begin with.