Rapiers

Talking with FuzzyGeff about Pathfinder and I noticed, again, that it has a rapier.

In the real world, rapiers don't come along until well after guns are commonplace on the battlefield, mid 16th century.

Their development happens about the same time as the processes that allow for there to be steel plate armor.

But do you need guns for them to be developed.

The "fencing" weapons all come the idea that your opponent isn't wearing armor.

Armor that was, mostly, abandoned because of firearms.

Firearms that aren't any better than crossbows that didn't spur people to stop wearing armor; at least according to the stats in the game.

GURPS gives more realistic guns and thus you can see why someone wouldn't want to be wearing something heavy and uncomfortable that didn't do much to protect them.

Pathfinder?  FuzzyGeff informs me that if you get a crit hit with a gun, it's pretty spectacular, but otherwise, it's the same as a crossbow for damage and rate of fire.

Crossbows, in the real world, didn't spur the abandonment of armor, despite there being some that can punch all the way through the knight, saddle and horse if fired downward at an angle like you'd see if they were firing from a wall. 

Wow The Hate

Jason Bulmahn, lead designer of Pathfinder objects to JD Vance owning and playing the game.

They say he should return his books.

Because Mr Vance is a fascist and they don't support fascism or something.

First off, I really wish the left would buy a fucking dictionary and read the definition of fascism.

I'll even be generous and use the online version of the dictionary:

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
3. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
4. A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government; -- opposed to democracy and liberalism.
5. An authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities. Such regimes usually try to achieve popularity by a strongly nationalistic appeal, often mixed with racism.
6. Specifically, the Fascist movement led by Benito Mussolini in Italy from 1922 to 1943.
7. Broadly, a tendency toward or support of a strongly authoritarian or dictatorial control of government or other organizations; -- often used pejoratively in this sense.
8. A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the market place, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights. Originally only applied (usually capitalized) to Benito Mussolini's Italy. 
   

I think they mean definition 4 and are also not using liberalism correctly. 

But I think liberals need to look HARD at this list of definitions and register that Trump might be the least fascist president we've had in decades because of his de-regulatory efforts.

A lot of that list fits the US government.  And it has fit since, at least, FDR.

Definition 8 in particular rings true during the Wuhan Flu "misinformation" era.

But the creator of Pathfinder was A-OK with all that!

So I ask, once again, who's really the fascist here?

Compliance

It just occurred to me that if SJGames isn't going to do more GURPS and Steve is someone I don't want to have any of my filthy, deplorable, garbage lucre:

My rules interpretations and house rules are now the official rules.

I'm the only person I am in contact with who games who even tries to do GURPS anymore.

Pathfinder is what the group who discovered they were happy to be rid of me is playing now.

So if they were to allow me to come back in some form, they'd be playing my interpretation of GURPS because I'd be the GM and my word would be law.

All things considered, I am not even certain that GURPS would be better than Pathfinder for traditional fantasy settings.

I trend to non-traditional stuff, so...

Hell, from what I've read of the newer versions of AD&D, I'd pick 2nd edition.  It's stripped down AD&D and if I'm going simple, I'm gonna go all the way.

SJGames, in the process of abandoning GURPS resurrected The Fantasy Trip.  If they wanted my filthy, deplorable, garbage lucre it's just $35 to get the rules in pdf form.  I remember playing Melee back in the day.  Pity.

"A Sword?" R. Nash c. 1986

It should be noted, before I start wandering here, that all the various kinds of swords we have put names to were just called "sword" in their day.  Most of the names are from archaeologists attempting to sort out the timeframes of grave goods.

Oakeshott typology is probably the most famous way to sort what GURPS will call a "broadsword" and D&D will call a "longsword."

GURPS has a list of swords that are all "broadswords" under the rules.

Khopesh

Broadsword

Large Falchion

Pata

Shotel

Bastard Sword (used one handed)

Dao

Estoc

Hook-Sword

Jian

Katana

Longsword

Backsword

Cavalry Saber

Edged Rapier

The D&D 5e equivalent to "broadsword" is "longsword" and it covers a wide variety of side-arms.  Perhaps more because the "versatile" tag means it can be used 2-handed; which would imply bastard sword is included.

This is a continuation from 4e where the weapons list is a bit longer, but still much shorter than 2e.  I don't have any 3e books (or 3.5e books for that matter).

2e was longer than AD&D. 

D&D, starting with 4e makes a distinction between "simple" and "military" weapons.  5e calls the distinctions "simple" and "martial."

With how over-the-top inclusive Wizards of the Coast went, I cannot but wonder if these categories are from the thinking about "assault weapons" among liberals.

The historical divide over some weapons is related to sumptuary laws in that you needed to be of a certain social rank to have them.

Cost wasn't the only reason a peasant didn't have a sword in many places.

But ahistorically egalitarian D&D can't make the common/noble distinction and still have adventurers, so...

I'm amused to note that 2e has a firearm, an arquebus.  It also adds the rapier.  4e and 5e don't have guns, but keep a sword that was developed from guns driving armor off the battlefield.

Warhammer FRP is even more consolidated, most everything is a "hand weapon"

Hand Weapon: This broad class includes one-handed axes, swords, clubs, maces and hammers. These weapons are all com­parable in use and effect, and no distinction is made between them in the rules.

Yet it still has a rapier...

Pathfinder 2e follows the same pattern as D&D (shocking! I know) but breaks the falchion out from longsword and still has a separate bastard sword.

Rapier without firearms again... 

LBB Traveller has guns, so many guns...

Sword is the one handed, all inclusive sword.  Broadsword is a two-hander.  Cutlass is loosely defined enough to include a rapier.

Top Secret might have rules for swords, it definitely has rules for throwing them...

Top Secret SI has a "sword".

Whither TL4

GURPS defines the medieval period as TL3.

Players of D&D think they're playing in a medieval setting.

But much of the equipment in D&D is TL4 according to GURPS, which says it's "age of sail."

So much of D&D is already TL4, I wondered if adding the "missing" TL4 item would break it.

That would be guns.

Pathfinder even has a "gunslinger" class.

Critical Role has a main character in their anime, Legend of Vox Machina, who uses a gun.

TL4 is 1450 to 1730.  Guns go from cannon lock gonnes to full flintlock in this timeframe.

But does it matter?

The only things that change, besides firearms, is the adoption of what GURPS calls fencing weapons.

D&D is early TL4 where "sword" still equates to the GURPS broadsword and not a rapier or smallsword.

Artwork from D&D clearly shows ships that are obviously NOT TL3, much like the armor available.

Matchlock and wheel lock guns don't break the paradigm.

Multi-barrel and superposed loads (which didn't catch on in the real world) might get more common if there's an, ahistorical, adventuring class.

The existence of armed and armored, but not noble, persons is also ahistorical.  Never mind the racial and gender egalitarianism that's been there since day one, despite what Hasbro thinks.

Considering that I don't think it's even difficult to run a fantasy campaign with Old West gear, it's simple to add some early firearms to the mix.

I've also considered the effect of letting the dwarves and elves be the source of TL4 goods and letting people pay double for them.

The Ulfbrecht swords from history are an example.  It appears unlikely that the places where such swords are found had developed the furnaces needed for crucible steel.  But they did have trade networks to places that had.  A pig of crucible steel could readily be hammered out into a far better blade than could be made from bloomery iron by virtually anyone who could make a sword.

Crucible steel is a very late TL3 technology, but it wasn't native to where the swords have been found.

By TL4, it's a normal technology and it leads to making the long, narrow blades of rapiers.