The Value of a Sword

[Bill Reich]

Over-Valuing Swords


I want to ask three main questions here.

Have I over-valued, made too useful, swords in my Glory Road Roleplay Rules? There is a related question here: Do game designers in general over-value swords? However, that isn’t very important to me right now and it is too difficult to answer quickly without looking at a great many rules sets. So, it isn’t one of my main questions.

The second question is, is there a reason to over-value swords. I realized early on that many early game designers under-valued missile weapons and I know they had their reasons. Maybe there is a genre reason to over-value swords.

The third main question is: what should I do about it.


Let’s compare Glory Road swords with other weapons of the same or similar handling weights. Let’s compare the good old Arming Sword, the one-handed broadsword of the medieval period, with an axe of the same handling weight as the edge of the sword. The sword has more reach with the point and that’s fine. It has the same reach with the edge and that’s good also. I’m mostly comparing edge versus edge anyway. The axe has a much larger handling penalty because its striking surface is smaller and your opponent has to worry about the point, so that’s ok too. However, the axe only does one category of damage more than the edge of the sword if the wielders are the same strength. That’s a small difference. 2D10+2 versus 4D6 for Strength Bonus three characters.

With those other advantages, why was the sword relegated to sidearm status (except for polearm-sized swords) when armor became common? Well, this sword was not suitable for two-handed use but even the longsword was generally considered a backup weapon to something with more percussive impact. Given that the amount of damage in the system directly impacts whether the weapon hurts someone through the armor, maybe I am giving swords too much damage.

Both these sword edges and axes are chopping weapons and can easily be compared. We roll the damage, subtract the armor value and then double and apply the result.

A mace or a hammer will do about the same damage as an axe but we only subtract half of the armor value. Then we apply the result without doubling.

A few swords, such as the katana, depend on the drawing cut. For them, we subtract double the armor and then we triple the result and apply it.

Some sword points do armor piercing point damage and have a damage type similar to blunt weapons and they are useful against armor.

Most sword points do stabbing point damage, which works like cutting damage.

So, what’s the problem? For a crunchy game to have swords still be the weapon of choice for many player-characters feels like it ought to be problematical.


Well, is there a reason to over-value swords? Swords are the glamour weapon of fantasy literature. The fact that they were not the battlefield weapon of choice did not mean that they couldn’t be carried by far-traveling adventurers. And a sword, unless we are talking about a huge two-hander, is handy to carry around. Finally, a sword is often the status symbol of a noble or an officer. So, I think it should retain its status as at least a favored sidearm.


So, what is to be done? Well, I could easily reduce the damage of swords, at least their edges. Weapon stats are on the website on a PDF, not on the core rules that are commercially available. And I could put a note on DriveThru that I had done that. GMs could change or not as they choose. Or I can leave it like it is. They do call (part of) the genre Sword and Sorcery, after all.

 

[TristramEvans]

I'm not sure I can provide a suitable answer to all your questions, but I'll say this - the higher the development/importance of armour in a setting, the more useful impact weapons are going to be over cutting/slashing. Armour from mail up to plate was largely developed to protect from piercing/slashing, but a heavier weapon will cause immense crushing damage regardless. Pikes were supremely useful against cavalry not because of their sharpness so much as the leverage they provided that allowed them to punch through armour of opponents charging at a great speed.

Axes have the advantage of being heavy, edged, and, even more importantly, they have a psychological aspect to them often overlooked in combat rules. However, heavier weapons, such as axes, became disadvantaged in an extended melee. Alot of weapons perform differently during a charge/initial clash then in extended combat. Swords are basically all-around decent in both cases. No special advantage or disadvantage in either situation.

Swords maintained dominance as the main hand weapon for the majority of human history because they were light, fast, had multiple uses both offensive and defensive, were "easily" constructed (this is a somewhat relative statement, keep in mind) and could be effectively wielded with little training.

As for it having a genre significance - this is something you'll have to decide for yourself, but as far as most developed human cultures go, the sword resonates with mythological and psychological significance.

 

[Shipyard Locked]

Cross-shaped swords also got an iconography boost from their association with the Catholic church and its various incarnations of crusaders and paladins. I would imagine for many Westerners that's some strong subconscious glamour nudging design choices too.

Tangent warning: Forget swords, it's daggers that are the truly undervalued weapon in pseudo-premodern gaming! Daggers might have seen more action than swords overall since people of any station were likely or even entitled to carry one where a battlefield sword would have been frowned upon.

 

[Stevethulhu]

Swords maintained dominance as the main hand weapon for the majority of human history because they were light, fast, had multiple uses both offensive and defensive, were "easily" constructed (this is a somewhat relative statement, keep in mind) and could be effectively wielded with little training.

Random trivia, swords didn't maintain dominance on the battlefield. They're a sidearm. Issuing swords and nothing else to an army is like equipping a modern army with nothing more than pistols.

Where swords win out is, they're a sidearm. They are easily worn in almost any situation and are most effective against an opponent with light or no armour. They're a great backup weapon or a civilian weapon. But not as a primary weapon for soldiers. With a few exceptions, of course.

As for them being easily constructed, that's simply not the case. A sword require specific characteristics. It has to be light but strong. Hard enough to hold an edge, but not to hard as to be brittle and breakable. These aren't easy things to do, which is why sword smiths were specialists.

When it comes to training, it takes more to become a competent swordsman than it does to be a competent spearman. But probably less than ti takes to become a competent archer. But the thing to remember is, due to the difficulty and relatively long process of manufacturing a sword, they tended to be the weapon of the nobility. So no, game designers don't, as rule, over value swords. They're tricky to make, demand a greater investment of time in learning effective use and are generally less effective than other battlefield weapons. Which in some cases (axes in particular) are often derived from tools that levies would use on a daily basis.

 

[The Butcher]

Random trivia, swords didn't maintain dominance on the battlefield. They're a sidearm. Issuing swords and nothing else to an army is like equipping a modern army with nothing more than pistols.

Where swords win out is, they're a sidearm. They are easily worn in almost any situation and are most effective against an opponent with light or no armour. They're a great backup weapon or a civilian weapon. But not as a primary weapon for soldiers. With a few exceptions, of course.

As for them being easily constructed, that's simply not the case. A sword require specific characteristics. It has to be light but strong. Hard enough to hold an edge, but not to hard as to be brittle and breakable. These aren't easy things to do, which is why sword smiths were specialists.

When it comes to training, it takes more to become a competent swordsman than it does to be a competent spearman. But probably less than ti takes to become a competent archer. But the thing to remember is, due to the difficulty and relatively long process of manufacturing a sword, they tended to be the weapon of the nobility. So no, game designers don't, as rule, over value swords. They're tricky to make, demand a greater investment of time in learning effective use and are generally less effective than other battlefield weapons. Which in some cases (axes in particular) are often derived from tools that levies would use on a daily basis.

But do you feel their efficacy as weapons is overvalued in game mechanical terms?

 

[Stevethulhu]

But do you feel their efficacy as weapons is overvalued in game mechanical terms?

That begs the question of, are you making out that swords are some kind of special thing, like Legend of the Five Rings does? Or are swords simply another option. One that isn't a perfect solution to all problems, but that has good and bad points. And in turn, how deadly is your system? Do you have hit point inflation as experience is accrued? This has the effect of rendering mundane weapons all but irrelevant.

Or, a sword in GURPS is probably more dangerous than a sword in D&D. Especially at high levels.

 

[TristramEvans]

Random trivia, swords didn't maintain dominance on the battlefield. They're a sidearm. Issuing swords and nothing else to an army is like equipping a modern army with nothing more than pistols.

I said they were the dominant hand weapon (ie sidearm), not that they maintained dominance on the battlefield. A better word might be "omnipresence". Swords were omnipresent on the battlefield for 99% of recorded history, and a bit before.

As for them being easily constructed, that's simply not the case.

There was a reason for the caveat in brackets; it was a relative statement. Swords were mass-produced throughout most of human history. Not many swords over the course of history were actually made with the exacting standards of folded steel with carbine which you are referencing; that represents only a very late method of production. They are actually quite easy to learn to use effectively in comparison to most other dedicated weapons on the battlefield.

 

[Stevethulhu]

I said they were the dominant hand weapon (ie sidearm), not that they maintained dominance on the battlefield. A better word might be "omnipresence". Swords were omnipresent on the battlefield for 99% of recorded history, and a bit before.

Historically speaking, going back to the stone age, spears were the dominant hand weapon. Both for hunting and for battle. And for a simple reason: you can fit two or three spearmen in the same amount of space that one swordsman needs on the battle line. So your army of swordsmen is outnumbered at every point of contact by an army made up of an equal number of spearmen. Romans being an obvious exception. But their tactic of "step forwards, shields up, stab low, repeat on the drum beat" owed a great debt to the way spear phalanxes had fought.

As an omnipresent weapon, the vast majority of people fighting on the field wouldn't own a sword. At best, they might have a falchion or similar, which is more like a big knife than a sword.

There was a reason for the caveat in brackets; it was a relative statement. Swords were mass-produced throughout most of human history. Not many swords over the course of history were actually made with the exacting standards of folded steel with carbine which you are referencing; that represents only a very late method of production. They are actually quite easy to learn to use effectively in comparison to most other dedicated weapons on the battlefield.

Swords were expensive to produce, meaning they were very much the province of the wealthy. And mass production didn't exist until the Industrial Revolution. Prior to this every single item used by anyone anywhere at any time had been hand made. Every. Single. Thing. The means of mass production didn't exist. Instead, you had vast numbers of craftsmen, each one certified by a guild, making items to order. That order could have been at the personal level ("I need a sword" or the guild level ("We need 5,000 spears, 200 swords and all the unskilled workers in your town to go invade the next country over").

As for easy to learn, have you got any experience with weapons? I've only got meaningful experience with staff, nunchaku, yawari sticks, knives and a smattering of kama. But I've dabbled enough with swords to know that they aren't as easy to use as you might think. Swords are a fairly sophisticated weapon in terms of being able to use it effectively. And are quite often used in tandem with a shield or buckler. Spears, on the other hand, are fairly stricghtforward to use, especially in formations. Though marching adds to the difficulty there. And things like axes are often tools first, then modified into weapons. So the user is already familliar with handling one for extended periods such as combat would entail.

 

[TristramEvans]

Historically speaking, going back to the stone age, spears were the dominant hand weapon.

Spears are not hand weapons. Especially not in the context that you are quoting.

As an omnipresent weapon, the vast majority of people fighting on the field wouldn't own a sword. At best, they might have a falchion or similar, which is more like a big knife than a sword.

A falchion is a sword, I've never seen it classified otherwise, anywhere. And oddly specific to the 13th to 16th centuries, which makes it a confusing example. Perhaps you are thinking of something else?

Swords were expensive to produce, meaning they were very much the province of the wealthy.

Again you seem to be specifically referring to a type of sword that represents an incredibly late development in the history of swords overall. A gladius was neither expensive to produce, nor the province of the wealthy. Every legionnaire was equipped with one as standard. Viking troves uncovered in Norway and Sweden, along with Celtic burial cairns are littered with piles and piles of swords.

And mass production didn't exist until the Industrial Revolution. Prior to this every single item used by anyone anywhere at any time had been hand made. Every. Single. Thing. The means of mass production didn't exist. Instead, you had vast numbers of craftsmen, each one certified by a guild, making items to order.

lol, no, many things were mass produced well before the industrial revolution. So, so many things. Yes, they were made by hand (as were most things during and after the industrial revolution - it didnt suddenly provide the world with factory robots), but assembly-line manufacturing procedures existed well into antiquity. Granted, mass production may mean much greater quantities today of commercial products, but we're also talking about a world population 400% larger. Relative to pupolation, the ability of Western Europeans in the middle ages to churn out horseshoes, arrows, fletched bows, hauberks, bridles, ropework, etc was absolutely remarkable. Check out Gies' treatise on the subject. And guilds? once again you're betraying a focus on a very specific period of history that represents only the smallest fraction of time during which swords were omnipresent in warfare.

As for easy to learn, have you got any experience with weapons?

Yes. And once again , its all relative. Learning to use a sword is much easier than - learning to be a good enough horseman to effectively maneuver in battle, conning a ship, learning to use a flail, sewing a tapestry, training a falcon, hunting with a longbow, illuminating a manuscript (heck, learning to read and write), any other hundreds of specialized skills that would be exceptionally common throughout human history. Would a peasant levy have that training? No. Would every professional soldier, militiaman, privateer, and nobleman? Hell yes. I think perhaps you are looking at this from an incredibly modern perspective. Also note that effectively using a sword is not the same as training under 15th century duelling manuals, or anything of the like. A centurion would know how to hack and slash, and in the midst of battle, that is all they would need to know. To that end, effectively using a sword is only slightly more complex than learning to effectively use a club. There were no parries or ripostes, flynning or the like going on in the midst of a dark ages melee. Now , I havent professionally trained in all the varieties of martial arts weaponry you mention (I had a pair of foam nunchucks as a kid), but I do have 6 years training with the Academie Duello using a variety of western swords, and I grew up with martial arts lessons. And the one thing I can tell you about both of these endevours is that, while very fun, they are as far removed from ancient world warfare as Tai Chi is from a samurai duel. You plop me down in the middle of medieval battle tomorrow and I'm like this...

(could only find this foreign language meme, but I think we all know this scene)

Now through none of this I should stress, am I claiming that swords were the be all end-all of weaponry, that they were even the main weapon of warfare of any period (the spear/pike holds this distinction for close combat, from the Roman Phalanx to the Scottish Schiltron), but I think you are just going way too far in the other direction. Before the dominance of gunpowder, swords were never rare. They would be a common sight on every battlefield from Zama to Hastings, because they remained practical and useful.

 

[OmnusI]

I'm guessing part of the reason swords are expensive in many games was because those weapons, in many cultures, were the more exclusive weapons of the nobility. In places where the peasants were close to revolting, swords and other long blades were occasionally banned, or screened off as the exclusive right of one caste or class to own. They represented mastery over an unarmored peasant class - it is one of the most efficient weapons for putting down unarmored foes without guns. Swords had a mystical or religious attribution to them after some time - the Norman cross-sword, the Japanese katana, etc. Against an armored foe, the sword loses some of its effectiveness, or course, when compared to blunt weapons, axes, and flails, but they remained in the armament as a means to dispatch lesser foes. The sword got smaller and smaller, in many places replacing the misericorde, the thrusting finishing dagger used to stab eyeholes in the armor of a downed foe or slit his throat. As armor became obsoleted by crossbows and forearms, that sword's allure didn't fade as it got more useful once again, but heavier swords went by the wayside (no need to hack someone through armor!) in favor of quick duelling swords like the rapier. If you take away the societal impact upon swords, it may devalue them, but in order to accurately express the paper-rock-scissors of weapons, you'd have to be detailed enough to have armor have different effects based on the weapon used.

 

[Edgewise]

I have no personal experience with this. I have watched quite a few HEMA-oriented videos in the last few years and read up a bit as an interested outsider. And from what I've seen, spear vs. sword is very advantageous for the spear. If the swordsman has a shield, it seems more evenly matched, but it's still a serious challenge.

The spear can change it's angle of attack very quickly, and it can dart in and out close up or at range. If the spearman is overextended, the risk is that the opponent will get past the point - that's probably where pole-arms have a distinct advantage. I've seen a number of folks describe the sword as a solid second-best weapon in every category of performance. It lacks the speed and reach of a spear or the armor penetration qualities of axes and hammers. It's the middle ground on both counts.

From what I have read, as Stevethulhu said, the sword was historically used primarily as a sidearm. I've even heard that the legendary katana fulfilled the same role for samurai despite its fearsome modern reputation. It could be worn in polite company without raising eyebrows like a halberd would. The fact that a sword could be carried off the battlefield made it as much an object of status and luxury for the aristocracy.

 

[Bill Reich]

Thanks for participating. I finally decided to make all sword edges do cutting damage, rather than have many of them do axe-like chipping damage. They actually roll more damage now than axes of the same handling weight but they are resisted by twice the usual value of the target's armor. Whatever damage does get through is tripled. That makes sword edges pretty useless against plate and against a few well-armored monsters, only marginally useful against mail, but otherwise murderous. I have a paragraph about what a character can lug around and that, coupled with a sword's advantages in speed and reach, over shorter hafted weapons, should keep swords pretty popular. If worse comes to worse, most swords have points that are useful, to varying degrees, against armored foes..

 

[Bill Reich]

I have no personal experience with this. I have watched quite a few HEMA-oriented videos in the last few years and read up a bit as an interested outsider. And from what I've seen, spear vs. sword is very advantageous for the spear. If the swordsman has a shield, it seems more evenly matched, but it's still a serious challenge.

The spear can change it's angle of attack very quickly, and it can dart in and out close up or at range. If the spearman is overextended, the risk is that the opponent will get past the point - that's probably where pole-arms have a distinct advantage. I've seen a number of folks describe the sword as a solid second-best weapon in every category of performance. It lacks the reach of a spear or the armor penetration qualities of hammers and axes. It's the middle ground on both counts.

From what I have read, as Stevethulhu said, the sword was historically used primarily a sidearm. I've even heard that the legendary katana basically fulfilled the same role for samurai. It could be worn in polite company without raising eyebrows like a halberd would. The fact that a sword could be carried off the battlefield made it as much an object of status and luxury for the aristocracy.

Yes, the katana was a sidearm In war. However, after wars became less common, dueling became more common and other weapons were rarely used in duels. I think, it's been a long time since I read it, that someone showed up to fight Miyamoto Musashi carrying a parasol because he didn't have a chance anyway. But katanas were more usual.

 

[Raleel]

Thanks for participating. I finally decided to make all sword edges do cutting damage, rather than have many of them do axe-like chipping damage. They actually roll more damage now than axes of the same handling weight but they are resisted by twice the usual value of the target's armor. Whatever damage does get through is tripled. That makes sword edges pretty useless against plate and against a few well-armored monsters, only marginally useful against mail, but otherwise murderous. I have a paragraph about what a character can lug around and that, coupled with a sword's advantages in speed and reach, over shorter hafted weapons, should keep swords pretty popular. If worse comes to worse, most swords have points that are useful, to varying degrees, against armored foes..

I actually like this quite a bit. It’s more detail in a game than I’d want I suspect, but it makes sense in some fashion. Nobility would carry around swords because they could afford them, and the peasantry couldn’t afford armor. Thus, the sword is extremely dangerous to them.

 

[Edgewise]

Nobility would carry around swords because they could afford them, and the peasantry couldn’t afford armor. Thus, the sword is extremely dangerous to them.

Ooh, damage mechanics as social commentary...very nice.

 

[Bill Reich]

I actually like this quite a bit. It’s more detail in a game than I’d want I suspect, but it makes sense in some fashion. Nobility would carry around swords because they could afford them, and the peasantry couldn’t afford armor. Thus, the sword is extremely dangerous to them.

Of course, a noble would also have a horse and could hang a shield on the saddle and have a warhammer attached or carried by a servant, in case he ran into a fellow noble or a prosperous man-at-arms that needed killing.

Lady Guin, a player-character knight in my current campaign has all of that plus shield and a crossbow. One can reasonably attach rigging to hold all of these things on a horse and there is a pack-horse for extra bolts and extra shields (shields get beat to shit and need to be replaced) She broke her third and last lance many sessions ago. When they entered a ruin, she had to make some decisions and swore at herself for not hiring an available servant back in Iron town.

"It’s more detail in a game than I’d want I suspect." Have you looked at the free support material? Yes, it's a lot of detail but most of it is handled "offstage" and is on the character sheet. Play goes pretty quickly.

https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/

 

[Raleel]

I'm speaking more of the societal part of it, rather than specifics of whatever campaign realm you are working with, as far as what the noble might be allowed. Horses and warhammers aren't particularly relevant to the point - more than swords make a fine side arm against relatively unarmored people's

also, I mostly just don't care about that level of detail. I'm sure the system is fine, but that's a step past where I want to pay attention It wouldn't fly with my group, as most of them also don't care. Personal preference is all

 

[Spinachcat]

This issue is one of the reasons I went to "all weapons do D6, but have unique properties" for my OD&D game. Then players can choose which flavor of combat advantage they want from their weapons. In my games, swords give +1 Parry bonus, aka if your PC goes full defense for their action, you get +1 AC when wielding a sword.

As for design choices, the big question is how Abstract is your entire system? One of the big issues with games is when they decide to combine Abstract and Concrete, but go extreme in one direction in certain areas of the game. AKA, AD&D's weapon vs. armor table.

 

[noman]

This issue is one of the reasons I went to "all weapons do D6, but have unique properties" for my OD&D game. Then players can choose which flavor of combat advantage they want from their weapons. In my games, swords give +1 Parry bonus, aka if your PC goes full defense for their action, you get +1 AC when wielding a sword.

As for design choices, the big question is how Abstract is your entire system? One of the big issues with games is when they decide to combine Abstract and Concrete, but go extreme in one direction in certain areas of the game. AKA, AD&D's weapon vs. armor table.

Spinach, would you be willing to share this damage ruleset of yours here? Not necessarily on this thread, as I don't want to hijack it away from the OT. You've mentioned it a few times, and I'm very intrigued. I'd be very interested to know which weapons provide which benefit in your system.

 

[Spinachcat]

Ask and you shall receive...next week.

 

[noman]

Ask and you shall receive...next week.

You're awesome, man. Thank you.