Bill Reich
First Post
Over-Valuing Swords
I want to ask three main questionshere.
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 agreat many rules sets. So, it isn’t one of my main questions.
The second question is, is there a reasonto over-value swords. I realized early on that many early game designersunder-valued missile weapons and I know they had their reasons. Maybe there isa genre reason to over-value swords.
The third main question is: what shouldI do about it.
Let’s compare Glory Road swords with other weapons of the same or similar handling weights. Let’s compare thegood old Arming Sword, the one-handed broadsword of the medieval period, withan 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 andthat’s good also. I’m mostly comparing edge versus edge anyway. The axe has amuch larger handling penalty because its striking surface is smaller and your opponenthas to worry about the point, so that’s ok too. However, the axe only does onecategory of damage more than the edge of the sword if the wielders are the samestrength. 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 good armor became common? Well, this sword was not suitable for two-handed use buteven 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 thearmor value and then double and apply the result.
A mace or a hammer will do aboutthe 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 andthen we triple the result and apply it.
Some sword points do armor piercingpoint damage and have a damage type similar to blunt weapons and they areuseful against armor.
Most sword points do stabbing pointdamage, which works like cutting damage.
So, what’s the problem? For acrunchy game to have swords still be the weapon of choice for many player-charactersfeels like it ought to be problematical.
Well, is there a reason toover-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 aretalking 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 retainits 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) thegenre Sword and Sorcery, after all.
I want to ask three main questionshere.
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 agreat many rules sets. So, it isn’t one of my main questions.
The second question is, is there a reasonto over-value swords. I realized early on that many early game designersunder-valued missile weapons and I know they had their reasons. Maybe there isa genre reason to over-value swords.
The third main question is: what shouldI do about it.
Let’s compare Glory Road swords with other weapons of the same or similar handling weights. Let’s compare thegood old Arming Sword, the one-handed broadsword of the medieval period, withan 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 andthat’s good also. I’m mostly comparing edge versus edge anyway. The axe has amuch larger handling penalty because its striking surface is smaller and your opponenthas to worry about the point, so that’s ok too. However, the axe only does onecategory of damage more than the edge of the sword if the wielders are the samestrength. 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 good armor became common? Well, this sword was not suitable for two-handed use buteven 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 thearmor value and then double and apply the result.
A mace or a hammer will do aboutthe 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 andthen we triple the result and apply it.
Some sword points do armor piercingpoint damage and have a damage type similar to blunt weapons and they areuseful against armor.
Most sword points do stabbing pointdamage, which works like cutting damage.
So, what’s the problem? For acrunchy game to have swords still be the weapon of choice for many player-charactersfeels like it ought to be problematical.
Well, is there a reason toover-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 aretalking 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 retainits 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) thegenre Sword and Sorcery, after all.
Last edited: