Alternative Sword stats

[Enlil]

I think the sword stats are too weak. :oops:

As it stands, they are easily the worst weapons outside of primitive weapons. This may fit history (though I think a sword should do OK against a guy in leather and maybe even quilted leather armor), but it doesn't fit the genre very well. Fafhrd and Gray Mouser should not be chumps for chosing sword.

At the same time, classic Superior Quality swords may have been too powerful - one of the best in the game.

So, my suggestions are as follows:
Poor Quality Sword
Power 3 Add 2 VA 0 Slow Long, May Great Strike
Run of the Mill Sword
Power 3 Add 2 VA 1 Slow Long, May Great Strike
Superior Quality Sword
Power 3 Add 2 VA 1 Slow Long, May Great Strike, +1D Balance Die

So what do people think?

Christian

[Burnt]

Are they really that bad? How does it compare with other one-handed weapons (I don't have my books on me)? You're example of the Gray Mouser has another implication, social restriction. It may be fine to carry a sword around town but that weird piker carrying the Halberd gets some funny looks from the guards. Same goes for armor when you're in town.

[Enlil]

Well, take a Run of the Mill Sword. It has NO VA, so a guy wearing leather armor has a 50% chance of stopping a blow to a limb, and 75% protection on the chest. If they are wearing Plated Leather, forget about it.

Now, I can understand that swords weren't too good against mail - but it seems like they should do OK against Plated leather, and certainly shouldn't be ineffective against quilted armor!

Still thinking about the social bit.

Christian

[Drozdal]

Fafhrd and Gray Mouser should not be chumps for chosing sword.
AFAIR majority of their opponents did not wear any armor at all (pirates, thiefs, assasins), so there is really no point of having a really powerfull weapon in your hand to fight unarmored opponents. Believe me, if You have Power is 6, damn even 7 (Fafhrd), or Reflexes of 6 (Gray Mouser) last thing you need is a huge hunk of metal in your hand... :wink:

[Storn]

I think that Swords needs to be expanded. It isn't the Sword that is the problem... it is fine and perhaps fairly accurate... but it misses by a long mark;

Historically, There are many different types of swords and they do different jobs.

Falchions were used by men in plate armor against men in plate armor. They were not shabby vs. chain either. But really meant for horseback (although I believe sabres are covered in some body text of BW)

A shortsword stab is going to make hash out of leather. Even if the damn thing doesn't break the skin, it can still break veins and bones behind the leather armor.

Bastard swords or Hand and Half swords were used by men in plate armor against men in plate armor. Often techniques of hooking, throwing, grabbing your own blade and using it like a short spear against weak points with MORE accuracy than axe or mace. Yet, amazingly, I've seen accounts of bastard sword duels vs. raipier, it was fast enough to hold its own... wow.

Which brings us to combat rapiers. I'm not talking about hollywood's swishy things, but the real thing. They were still being used well into 1820s against men in cuirass/breastplates.... but like the perception tells us, was really meant for the lighter, unarmored foe. As in personal protection. It was the wondernine of its day.

Then there is the broadsword or longsword. Lot of debate over if a "longsword" ever historically existed. But certainly the "Arming" and Broadsword did. Now, these were used in the Age of Chain constantly. They worked well enough to be part of every Norman knight's arsenal and lusted for by the Viking raider, and it wasn't a secondary weapon. It was their main weapon after the lance. Certainly, the Harlscarl's axes, as is the Francisca (I think BW gets those weapons right) are reknown... but military men are not stupid, there is a reason that they strapped on that 3-4 lbs of metal and went into combat. It wasn't to look cool.

So the stat in BW for the Sword is fine. There just needs to be more types of swords. And I haven't touched upon the Tulwar or the Scimitar... I understand that BW has a (Western) European outlook, but the Moors were in spain using these weapons until 1490s. The Mongols pushed to the Danube... these weapons were IN Europe.

But here is the way I choose to look at it; A superior quality sword is what the modern man thinks of as being the average sword. Cheap swords are that: Cheap. This is one of the strong reasons a feudal society existed... to provide a central power of 30 miles (typical barony of Europe, the riding distance of one day in all directions) of military horsemen. It was expensive. In order to afford that protection, a huge pyramid of support had to be constructed to afford a quality sword, a quality horse, quality armor (chain or plate...plate just gets more expensive) and a quality soldier. A good sword is a work of art. There are techniques in their crafting that we don't know today. The geometry of the blades is outstanding... but that is a Quality blade. Fafhrd and Grey Mouser are carrying Quality weapons.

Rome was more populous and there was more organization... they were able to field enormous numbers and hire even more. I think they actually skimped on the quality of the gladius in mass production, but their armor was decent for the day and their shields, organization and combat engineering were top notch. Europe, by the time of the knight, is a penisula that has been severely depopulated. We don't take that into account enough. The population could not afford more than a few, true professional soldiers at the top.

[luke]

Swords were no armor piercing weapons. Maces, axes and polearms were the armor piercing battle weapons. Swords were weapons of last resort in battle. Symbols, more than effective weapons. Read the Last Duel by Eric Jaeger for an awesome and clear account of a sword and dagger used in armored combat.

I'd be open to a Thrust/Half-Sword maneuver for swords, but I wouldn't change their stats.

-L

[Storn]

Swords were no armor piercing weapons. Maces, axes and polearms were the armor piercing battle weapons. Swords were weapons of last resort in battle. Symbols, more than effective weapons. Read the Last Duel by Eric Jaeger for an awesome and clear account of a sword and dagger used in armored combat.

I'd be open to a Thrust/Half-Sword maneuver for swords, but I wouldn't change their stats.

-L

Yes. And no.

The Falchion was used against plate armor. It is a giant cleaver like weapon with a thick, wedge shaped blade and you are right, it didn't pierce, it CAVED- in plate armor. It was used a lot in 1400 & 1500s. But it is ugly looking and definitely a device for war. Not very symbolic.

Also, you have to be more careful about the WHEN of it all. Certainly swords were used as primary weapons vs. chain, scale and leather. Chain certainly was the best armor of IT's time vs. the sword, but it wasn't foolproof.

And as soon as you introduce Pike and Gunpowder, plate starts to fade... which you have introduced Gunpowdeer in the "implied" setting of BW. As soon as plate starts to fade, you've got sabers and bayonet/ long knife becoming prominent again as the mainstay melee weapon for Cav/Foot accordingly.

So the plate armor window is actually a very, very small one. Perhaps 200 years? When you look at the entirety of HtH combat before the age of organized, industialized military force, swords play a HUGE role for about 3,000 years. When fantasy games cherry pick from all ages.... I think it would be better to have some different sword types in BW.... that is all. I'm not saying change the stats of the baseline 1H broad, arming or longsword.

[Durgil]

What everyone here needs to keep in mind is the supply of metal, the quality available, and the necessary skill needed to produce what you're talking about.

To begin with, fully articulated field and jousting plate were not even possible until the later part of the 14th century. Even when it was being produced, it was incredibly rare. I have always heard that its ownership was about as common as a privately owned jet is today. Keeping this in mind, yes, a sword would probably be pretty useless against a royal guardsman, king, prince, general, duke or earl.

As for the sword, it is a very utilitarian type of weapon. Can you parry an incoming blow with an axe or mace? Sure, but you can do it even better with a sword. The problem is that you've got to find enough good metal to make one. It doesn't have a wooden haft or pole. On top of that the metal can't be too brittle or too flexible, and it takes an incredible amount of skill to make one that is well balanced and capable of keeping an edge. Throw on top of that the law in most medieval kingdoms of not being able to carry one unless you are of noble birth, and you practically end up with a piece of equipment that is almost as rare as the heavy armor previously discussed.

If as a group, you keep the availability of heavy armor down, possibly by doubling the resource cost of mail, quadrupling the cost for plated mail, and squaring the cost for full plate armor, I'd go ahead and increase the VA of the Run-of-the-Mill and Superior Quality swords by one. While you're at through, I'd also go and double the cost of all quality types of swords as well.

That's just my 2¢ worth.

[Kublai]

All these sword points sound valid to me. However, BW as is doesn't care about those differences. BW sees all swords alike and doesn't want the crunch associated with listing a dozen different blades. However, that doesn't stop people from house-ruling stats for different blades. In fact, we do it all the time when the player really wants it. It's not that hard at all as we've seen in many posts.

Falchion:
Cheap: Power 3, Add 2, VA1, Slow, Long
Run of Mill: Power 3, Add 2, VA1, Slow, Long
Quality: Power 3, Add 2, VA2, Slow, Long

[Eric Minton]

If I'm reading the weapons appendix printout correctly, a run-of-the-mill light axe has the exact same stats as a superior sword, and is flat-out better than a run-of-the-mill sword (same stats except for +1 VA). Is this correct? One of my players cut a lot of corners during character burning in order to start off with a superior sword, and she'll flip out if she learns that she could just as well have taken a run-of-the-mill axe for 15 fewer resource points. How do I explain why the sword, a "symbol of power" renowned in story and legend, is just plain inferior to other, less storied arms, with no counterbalancing advantages whatsoever?

[Fourth Horseman]

My god its always the same thing with you people. Again in the grand scheme of things the INCREMENTAL differences in damage that various melee weapons do isn't worth the amount of rules crunching that some people want.

Please see this thread for yet another detailed discussion on this:

http://burningwheel.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2199

Whether its run of the mill, superior quality--swords or axes, all of these weapons are within a few points on va and power adds to one another.

Your PC is going to flip when she finds out she spent a fortune on a good sword instead of a pittance on an axe that does the same damage? Well, tough. Having a superior quality sword should be a mark of rank and should be incorporated into the actual roleplaying aspect of the game. So when you are eventually forced to explain that a "symbol of power" does the same damage as a lowly axe--stress the "symbol" part of that quote over the "power" part because historically that's just what swords have been, SYMBOLS of power.

But please don't ask Luke to turn swords into weapons of mass destruction on account of a few sword fetishes.

If you want to crunch the numbers by all means make up some house rules. Or better yet, toss BW in the trash bin and go buy rolemaster/arms law. They've got it down to the percentile for you, and the E stress criticals (sorry only available to the elect in suplement V) are quite rewarding.

Some of us like enjoying the whole forest, instead of getting lost with our faces shoved up against the bark and the trees.

[Yagathai]

My work here is done.

[ChrisG]

Damn. That was a sarcasm sandwich. With a side of dis.

[Eric Minton]

Thanks so much for helping me out with my problem by telling me I'm a loser. That was very productive. I'm sure that putting words in my mouth and making me feel even more frustrated made you feel lots better.

[Kublai]

Hahaha!

[Eric Minton]

My group and I come from a rules-light background. This is probably the most detailed game I've ever tried to run, rules-wise, and I'm pretty nervous about it. Right now I'm trying to forestall potential objections from players with no grounding in military history or theory. I'm not sure why this is grounds for attacking me.

[Yagathai]

Frankly, I'm not sure either, but I can guess -- your question wasn't out of line, though it has been addressed on this forum many times in the past. Perhaps Fourth Horseman just got tired of answering what's basically the same challenge to the rules over and over and over and over again.

When I talk to newbies about this particular topic, I ask them to think about chopping down a tree. Do you use a sword or an axe? Why is that?

OK, now imagine that the tree is an orc or something. What do you think is going to do more damage, the sword or the axe? What bites deeper? What hits harder? What has a better chance of battering through an arm raised to block? What do you think is going to have a better chance of transferring force through, say, a thick layer of leather or a thin layer of metal?

[Burnt]

Well you always have firearms if you are worried that swords don't do well against armor. There are a number of rules for increasing the VA or location of the hit. Though I'm sure you think the status of a sword sounds like an excuse to cover something in the rules think of this. How many martial schools deal with the mastery of the axe today are even in the past? The sword still carries a lot of significance.

[Durgil]

My god...
Is this type of attitude going to be tolerated from the members of this forum? :evil:

[Kublai]

Hell NO!

Burn Fourth Horseman! Burn him!

[luke]

Ok. Thread's locked.

Eric, if you have questions about player to player interaction, take it to the Fevered Circle. If you'd like to rant about how much you hate swords or hate discussions about swords or love swords or love your sword, take it to the Sea of Abzu.

-L