In Pendragon RAW it seems to be that swords don't break. Other weapons do on a fumble or on odd damage as the case with a lance.

Historically swords did and do break though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meln41VHxqs

I was thinking of house ruling that on a fumble or on a tie of the skill role that the sword breaks. On the tie though I'd rather not have both combatants swords breaking. How would you rule this? Maybe another roll on sword, loser's breaks.

Please note that the Sword is -inferior- currently to maces and axes and hammers EXCEPT by not breaking on a tie or a fumble.

If you make swords break, why should the players resist the siren call of +1d6 damage vs. chain/shield/plate?

Please note that the Sword is -inferior- currently to maces and axes and hammers EXCEPT by not breaking on a tie or a fumble.

If you make swords break, why should the players resist the siren call of +1d6 damage vs. chain/shield/plate?


Style.

Although I don't see why an all metal mace would be subject to the break on a fumble, considering it's all metal like a sword.

If it is just a matter of style, why not make all weapons equal, then? Why make Sword, the premier weapon of the warrior aristocracy, the WORST weapon mechanistically? Greg wanted to make weapon choices matter, which I think introduces a nice choice for the players, too, but then the weapons should be roughly equivalent in utility. While there is no need for an all-metal mace to break in battle any more often than a sword, Sword needs that advantage in durability to have something going for itself, when axes and maces are so darn effective. And you can't tell me that an axe is actually so good that it halves the advantage of having a shield in real combat.

I am already on record on this forum for stating that the other weapons are superior to the sword as it is, in skill levels below 20. :) The chance of a fumble or a tie comes to about 10% per round, so if you carry a couple of axes on your belt, you should be able to make it through the fight with just rearming yourself in a round. Especially if the GM assumes that a horseman will drop his sword on the ground and will not be able to recover it (we tend to use lanyards). +1d6 is a huge advantage in combat. For instance, assuming an enemy knight with chain mail (10 pts) and a shield (6 points), in early phases:
4d6 = average damage 14, no penetration.
4d6+1d6 / 5d6 = average 17, 1 pt penetration, 'tis just a scratch' (5d6 is pretty much the minimum for a knight, IMHO)
5d6+1d6 / 6d6 = average 21, 5 pts penetration, a moderately significant wound, 5 of these will lay a knight out
6d6+1d6 = average 24, 8pts penetration, a serious wound, three of these will lay a knight out

In short, by using an axe/mace, the knight will end the fight much quicker than if he is using a sword. Naturally, this difference comes down a bit if the enemy is more poorly armored, but then we start approaching the major wound threshold, which is a one-blow fight ender right there.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand. I think the OP suggested that only swords break other swords. So a sword user still has a bit of an edge against spears and such, pun intended. Using a skill contest on a tie to see whose sword breaks could work, too. Alternatively, you could have, say, a 1d6 roll on a fumble/tie: 1-2 your sword breaks. And then scale it up or down based on quality: 1 for a very good sword (£1?), 1-2 for a normal sword, 1-3 for a cheap (35d?) sword and 1-5 for a very cheap sword (20d). And maybe even have excellent swords, that WILL NOT BREAK, costing something like £4, fit to become heirlooms under their own right.

You can also use some idea I found in other systems. There a weapon has a quality and each fumble (or tie) will reduce its quality. If the quality becomes 0 it will break.

In that case normal weapons (like spear, maces, etc) would have a quality of 1. Swords could have a quality of 2. Meaning that they will not break as easily, but it still happens.

You could also increase its quality, for instance a good quality spear has a quality of 2 and meas is equal to a sword. A good quality sword would even be more durable, etc.

well aside from the fact that it is already style that created this idea that the sword is THE premier weapon of the warrior aristocracy rather than the reality that makes the sword generally the second best at everything especially once armor progresses past mail. This also ignores the fact once armor advances beyond mail the tactics used to fight start to change.

Some excellent ideas there guys. I think I'm gonna use the d6 after a tie/fumble when it's sword v sword.

The plan for me is that by the end of the Pendragon campaign when they are in full plate they'll be using maces and axes as they were more popular once armour had got that good. Shields weren't used either. I seem to recall reading somewhere that Richard III died with a axe in his hand.

I want to come back to this later, because really once the Europe hit transitional plate and mail harnesses, and progressing into the age of plate, in many ways THE weapons of unmounted knightly combat was the pollaxe.
But it would be boring if PKs weren't allowed to make choices that in reality would be sub-optimal, because this is a game about a genre of literature that is itself anachronistic with its subject matter and sensationalized to an extent.