a power sword does less damage than a regular sword simply because it's not as long and heavy?? oh yeah and said long ass sword is faster to use than a power sword as well???

I admit I completely skipped the whole STORM WARDENS section until recently , because I thought the whole braveheart thing was well over rated to begin with , but come on now... that's just ridiculous... did I miss a retraction in the errata or something?

and by regular sword I mean the goofy ass SACRIS CLAYMORE...

Brother Adonai said:

Have you ever seen a claymore in person? Calling it a sword is almost like an after thought. It's more like a sharpened baseball bat.

But the disparity you speak of you're just seeing with the 2 infront of the D10. Her'e show it rolls

1. Power swords use one hand. Claymores use two. Putting both hands puts more strength behind the claymore

2. The Claymore is unbalanced. Meaning it's -10 to try to parry with it. Power sword is balanced so it's +10 to parry

3. Power sword has 200% more penetration

4. Power sword, by virtue of being one handed, means you can utilize other things with your other hand. Bolt pistol, shield, or even another power sword.

And most importantly

210+2 with pen 2 does not mean it's inherently better than 1d10+6 with pen six. On an 'average' a claymore should do 12 damage and pass two. The power sword will do 11 and pass six. And you can use your other hand. Just because it's 2d10 doesn't mean you'll be rolling that 20 all the time. Speaking as an inherently bad roller, most of the time an extra 1d10 for me just means I get to add +1 to my roll.

So, base damages: 4 for the claymore, 2 going through. 7 for the power sword. 6 going through.

I have indeed seen a claymore in person... and? it's huge and slow... c'mon seriously??? have you ever swung a sword? something that big having less of a penalty that a one handed sword is preposterous... sorry .... historically claymores were used to attack a mounted opponent , and they weren't all that sharp in real life. now ever guy in a plaid mini skirt thinks he's got excalibur there in his hands... we could debate that all day and still not get anywhere.. but....

I guess my issue goes back to every other gaming system I have ever used where big ass butter knives were slow and your initiative suffered... that part will take some getting used to.

I know the deal with the power sword having deeper penetration , but all that aside you are still gonna sit there and try to tell me that a 2m long piece of "steel" with nothing special going on for it could potentially harm a guy more than a powered sword that just smacking it against somebody else sword gives you a 75% chance of breaking it?? trust me , I know the perils of the whole rolling horrid thing... I just think they went a little overboard with the whole braveheart thing here... in the original rules posted for the sample adventures it played as a "two handed combat knife doing +4 dmg"

I have read almost every book BL has put out and most of the time , hugely muscled orks with big ass cleavers have their stuff clatter off of the armor in the first place. I know some of this is for narrative effect , but seriously.

I guess at the end of the day I just wont be happy since I have to suffer through a new chapter when there were so many established chapters already to develop and we don't get. lol

anyway , thanks for the debate... I just really needed to vent

Brother Adonai said:

What "less of a penalty" are you talking about? Assuming the same quality, both will have the same chance to hit the target, and the power sword will have a 20% better chance of parrying. It gives a 1.3m blade nearly the striking force of a 2+m blade, and allows it to carve through armor far more easily than said 2m blade. Aside from the average damage, where there is a mere difference of 1.5 (when, after SB is added, both averages will likely be in the 20s), it is better in every way.

Why are you complaining again?

it's all covered in my edited above statement... you read it before i clarified my reasons

Brother Adonai said:

Sorry to say that but your statement is not very clear.
Everything I get out of it is:"meh! It's too good."

You say that the claymore does more damage than a powersword, which is just wrong when thinking about armored foes.

First Step should be to compare similar weapons. So first compare the ceremonial sword (DA trapping) and the powersword. Both are onehanded longswords. If you think those are ok from their respective power level.
Next step would be to compare the two unpowered swords, the claymore and the ceremonial sword.

All in all the onehanded weapons in DW are that much better than the twohanded, that the claymore could do some more damage and still not be overpowered.

Other RPGs give twohanded weapons double strenth bonus. DW instead adds 1D10 Damage most of the time because it doesn't become op with higher Str. characteristics.

Plus, a power weapon has a 75% chance of destroying non-power weapons. This alone can give a huge advantage on the battlefield.

I thought i was clearly saying that I found it to be too good... lol

and i know it has a 75% chance , I wrote that in one of my posts already...

Brother Adonai said:

You made it clear THAT you found it to be too good.
You did not make it clear WHY you think it's too good.

Just saying that the claymore does too much damage compared to the powersword is like saying that the heavy stubber does too much damage compared to the bolt pistol.
So I suggested to first compare comparable weapons like powersword to ceremonial sword (both onhanded) and ceremonial sword to sacris claymore (both unpowererd)

Frostfire said:

Eh? Really? Use a sword much?

Firstly, Claymores are NOT big heavy swords. If you look up how much they weigh, it's in line with every other two-handed sword. Two handed swords are not clubbing, brutal weapons and never, ever have been. They rely on skill and speed as much as any other blade. Victorian historians and game designers have a lot to answer for.

Putting both hands on a sword doesn't give you much more power. It gives you more control. Other RPGs give double the strength bonus because other RPGs are also written by people who don't use a sword on a regular basis. The problem with the Sacris Claymore is essentially that it does not possess the 'Balanced' trait and probably does a bit too much damage. I'd consider maybe cutting it to 2d10, in exchange for making it Balanced, and dropping the weight to 7.

2m long monomolecular edged sword is nothing ? You should in theory be able to slice a car in two with such enormous leverage and combined sharpness/durability without even being an astartes.

Bigger blade = bigger wounds.

Power Field = sharper cuts.

Alex

tkis said:

Leverage has nothing to do with it. You don't cut tomatoes by slamming the tip of a long blade down into them, do you? You cut by drawing the edge along the surface.

Siranui said:

Can't say that I do use a sword that much, so you do have me there.

Yes, a claymore isn't that big compared to any other two handed weapon, but I was specifically comparing them to a one handed weapon. A short sword or a gladius look like wimp swords compared to a claymore.

Saying it was a sharpened baseball bat actually did spawn from a victorian historian actually. He showed a skull of a guy unfortunate enough to get hit by a claymore in the face, right under the nose line. The sword had essentially added a second mouth for this guy, carving into the bone, but not cutting through. He then theorized that if it was a sharper sword, like a Katana, it could have gone straight through, but because it was a claymore, a larger broader blade, it left the guy to choke on his own blood.

Not saying he's right. Just saying what he's saying. Haven't really killed a man though, so I'm by no means an expert. I'd say it gives you more control, and with that control you can increase the power output onto target. Much like you can hit a baseball with more force using both hands rather than one hand. But then again, I suck at baseball too.

But this goes back to posts made by the OP. A claymore doesn't have the cutting power. That's why it doesn't have a high pen. It's the impact damage that's where it gets it's blow damage.

And for the record, I do cut tomatoes by putting the tip of a long blade down them. Not because it's practical mind you, ITS BECAUSE THEY HAVE IT COMIN!

Ah: There speaks a man whose misses doesn't moan if he leaves damp matter sprayed up the kitchen walls...

Digression...

If you just slam any bladed weapon straight into someone, then it the wound potential is more reliant on impact energy than how sharp the edge is. It's the pulling motion after/as the blow lands that really does the damage and utilises the edge, though. That's the difference between a (cutting) sword and a (chopping) axe. Granted, some blades are designed and weighted to chop (falchions for example. and I mean proper ones, rather than what 3.5 describes them as...), but the claymore isn't one of them. Still: If you hit someone square in the head with a sword, there's no real need to draw the blade particularly, as they're probably already dead. Incidently, the curve of a katana is there to ensure that the maximum length of the blade is used in the cut, maximising the damage potential when drawing it over the target.

The Victorians were hugely arrogant in their historical studies. They dismissed the middle ages as a time of smelly, savage misery, and are responsible for many lies that school teachers still tell us (That medieval people were dirty and never took baths, had rotten teeth and many more). In the case of weapons, clearly many of those who wrote about them had never lifted one, nor tested them. And many two-handed swords now known to be parade articles rather than tools of war, were mis-identified as actual weapons. Truth be told, two handers almost always weighed in at under 7lb (~3.3 kg). The massive advantage of using two hands comes not from strength, but technique. Two hands allows the sword to be wielded in a staggering number of ways, making the two handed sword a complete weapon system for use against any kind of target; from cuts and stabs to concussive blows and using it to trip, trap and disarm, and for extra leverage in grapples.

It's only in recent years that historians and enthusiasts have picked up swords and started trying to use them in the manner suggested by the masters and instructors of the period that we've come to really understand them. And sadly, most of the practical history of the sword is lost to us, with 'Fight Manuals' only covering the last 700-ish years in mixed detail, and only passing references in other documents before that time. Besides guess-work based on the geometry of weapons and extrapolation, we'll never know the guards and exact manner in which the Greeks or Vikings used their weapons.

The gladius is also possibly longer than you mentally imagine it to be as well, with the blade normally a little over 50cm long. I guess that movie makers are too mean to buy proper length props!

As for sharpness, it's far from uncommon to leave the bottom 1/3 of the blade unsharpened. I expect blades being found with much of the blade unsharpened further spread the lie that swords were blunt instruments, when the reality stems from their use. You're not likely to be hitting anything with that part, whereas you are engaging other's blades with it, and a fragile edge is just going to get ruined. Furthermore, it's very common to shift the left hand up to above the guard and hold the blade there (under the parrying hooks in the case of later two handers), which allows you to very precisely deliver blows to the weaker places in the foe's armour.

Basically: Two handers are elegant, fast, highly sophisticated, complete weapon systems, and I hate to see them constantly get mangled in the media and in games.

Siranui said:

The system took the easy way out, and said two handers do more damage but are harder to parry with, and single handers do less damage but are easier to parry with. The system has now made things simpler, at the cost of technical accuracy (again).

I hereby nominate you to come up with the HR system for melee combat to properly represent the different classes of weapons- at some point someone needs to do it.

I don't necessarily fault the devs for taking the 'easy way' when it came to how melee weapons work. DW is supposed to be an action-based game and I think it captures the feel of the 40K universe combat very well; DW is more 'Movie Marines' than the actual army list. So, I agree with the sentiment that 'two handed does more direct damage, power goes through armor easier'.

I've been playing RPG's since the D&D Blue Box, and IMO, more realism does not directly relate to a better over-all system. Rolemaster is a more realistic fantasy game than D&D, yet Rolemaster is far more complex and isn't as widely played because of the complexity. West End Games' Star Wars RPG was much more simplistic than Wizards of the Coasts' version, yet WEG's game was far superior because it more accurately reflected the fast paced space-opera style of the original films. A perfect example of realism not directly relating to playability is the old Phoenix Command system: the most obsessively accurate modern combat system ever made, but who wants to spend 30+ minutes tracking the path of every bullet from an M-16 burst; hits, misses, ricochets, and paths through human bodies in all? Some people do, and hey, more power to them. For the majority of gamers, though, it's not an ideal situation.

I'm not saying you can't add more realism into your DW game with the melee weapons; it's your game after all, do what you and your players want and enjoy. If you think that powerswords should be the end-all be-all of close combat, increase the damage or decrease the damage of the basic weapons. If you think that two-handed weapons get the shaft, up their damage. And more 'realistic' fighting styles for two-handed weapons have been done before in RPG's: check out the old 7th Sea game and their take on zweihanders in combat, Siranul, as a good starting point for what you are talking about.

I think that you've fallen for the old trap that more realistic = more complicated.

Realism does not exist on the same axis as complexity. The two are not mutually exclusive. Although more realistic = more complex, simpler = less realistic is something that does often occur, it's not actually an axiom. Games should strive for elegance, be they realistic or not. You can design games that are far more realistic than -say- 4e, while making them FAR simpler, from a rules perspective.

Rolemaster might have been very complex, but it certainly wasn't very realistic. OK: It was *more* realistic than D&D because it was harder to hit a skilled swordsman and there was a more complex damage system, but the combat itself was not really any more realistic, being based on basically the same concepts as D&D. People took it in turns to exchange blows, which could land anywhere, and luck played a massive part (plus the 7% chance of fumbling every time you swung a flail...). Riddle of Steel is much more realistic in the way combat plays out than Rolemaster, and is simpler, too. WEG's d6 system is very simple and elegant and can also be realistic with a bit of GM interpretation to the wound rules. To be honest; it's a far more realistic simulation than D&D has ever been. For comparison, Phoenix Command might have been the most massively complex game ever designed as regards damage (along with Milleniums End), but the way that combat itself ran was less realistic than many other games.

Again: No matter what the eventual design goals as concerns 'feel' of the game, designers should always strive for elegance. Make simple rules that provide complex results (if that's what you want).

In DW it's very easy to modify the melee weapons to make them more true-to-life. We've got some nice generic weapon traits (balanced, et al) that can be strapped onto things. We *could* go and write some more talents, but I feel that is a less elegant solution than just swapping out a few weapon traits. Then we get a more realistic simulation (which breaks my suspension of disbelief less, making it a more immersive and hence better game) for zero added complexity.

If you check my posts, I don't have a problem with two handed weapon damage at all. I have a problem with the way that they are generally lousy in defence.

My post was directed at the thread as a whole, since some posters do have a problem with how damage is done. And again, track down 7th Sea for an example of how two-handers can be show in the light that you're looking for.

I disagree that more realistic=more complex is a trap. By it's very nature, addding in more detail adds in more rules and more complexity. In the WEG Star Wars example, the game is excellent becasue it captures the feel of the movies perfectly: fast-paced and very action oriented. Adding in complexities like hit locations and critical charts would go against the feel since there's only 1 time in the original movies and just a handful of times in the prequels when such things matter: when people get limbs chopped off by lightsabers. Adding in those extras would only slow down the game, IMO, and add a more gritty feel to combat in what's supposed to be light-hearted adventure. For me, realism is not the essential factor, it's how a game captures the feel of the setting. Again, it's your game, run it how you want, I'm just stating my defense for the devs and why they presented things the way they did.

But more detail /= more realistic, either. Another trap of game design. You can be very realistic without having a table for everything.

We could - with 2d6 - design a shockingly easy combat system that would be both more simple and more realistic than 4e.

Likewise, WEG's wound system *is* more realistic than d20's. Neither system features locational wounds, but at least in d6 wounds impair the character. You even say it yourself when you say that locational tables are a complexity. Yes: They are. They don't automatically make a game more realistic by inclusion. Whereas WEG just gives a wound and then the GM decides on the specifics, which will - hopefully - match the type of attack, making it much more realistic than some games which have random location charts which might -in a given situation- make no sense and be completely unrealistic.

And I agree that games need a level of detail in suit with their genre. WEG's d6 suited the game perfectly. To take a look at another WEG game, TORG was -on the surface - a very unrealistic game that portrayed very action-based-fast-paced situations... and yet was pretty darned complex on the GM's side of the screen.

Again: whatever the designer wants from the game -realism, high-action fantasy, or whatever- they should aim for elegance of mechanics. In an ideal world where every game design was perfect this would create a tendency for more realistic games to be more complex, but that's not strictly the case. Take for example the concept of 'hero points' that players spend to pull off amazing feats or make re-rolls. Are they realistic? Nope. Are they an additional mechanic that an otherwise realistic game can do without and thus be more simple and elegant? Yup. In this case, decreased realism has made the game more complex.

However, the level of complexity has already been set by FFG. We've got weapon traits, locations, differentiation between weapons, et al. Increasing the level of realism by changing around a few traits and numbers does not make the game *any* more complex than it already is, as we are adding no new options, nor are we adding any new mechanics. We're just swapping around a bit of what already exists.

Siranui said:

Well it isn't hard to be more realistic than 4e and more simple. You also forgot more fun. It's really easy to be more fun than 4e.

But I digress. Well written my friend, well written You touched on a lot of very good points *clap* *clap* *clap*

I think you are greatly overrating the weapons in the dark ages and so on. First off, none of them were ever sharp, neither two-handers or one handed blades. They were mostly used as clubs, especially if the opponent had armour, which then the weapon would bludgeon him to death. The reason to why swords have an edge isn't to cut, but to diminish it's striking surface. Operating on the principle that the lesser the area, the more force is channeled into that area, as a knitting needle could penetrate plastic easily while the back end of a pen would have more difficulty.

Has anyone brought up the power claymore from Rites of Battle? It's the power weapon equivalent to the great weapon and or Sacris Claymore.

Gargarath said:

Wait, what?

Different swords had different properties, and not all of them were about being razor sharp, but your sweeping generalization here is not accurate. Ledgends, manuals, manuscripts, and actual swords from the dark ages would say otherwise. Where are you getting your information from?