PDA

View Full Version : How much would Strength actually contribute to weapon damage (read the OP)



Kalmageddon
2014-06-20, 08:29 AM
Now, this is sort of a strange question that I've been thinking about, regarding a game mechanic that we basically take for granted.
Almost all game systems out there equates how strong a character is to how much damage he will be able to do in melee. On the surface this makes perfect sense, but then I thought: would being stabbed with a sword by someone of average strenght really be any less serious than being stabbed by a big hunk of a guy?
What about being smashed with a flanged mace? Would the strenght of the man wielding the mace change the outcome all that much?
Basically what I'm saying is... Don't weapons do most of the work anyway? A sword or a knife is made sharp exactly because it's able to cut into flesh even when not much force is put behind it, after all. And it's the weight of a mace that delivers the hurt.
Being strong doesn't affect much aside from your ability to wield the weapon without straining a muscle or getting tired, I would think.

Wouldn't it make more sense if the Strength score of a character represented his ability to ignore amor instead? Because that's basically the only instance I could think of when being really strong could help, when the enemy has an armor that the weapon you are wielding can't reliably penetrate.

D&D sort of does it, with Strength being your key ability score when making a melee attack to overcome the armor of the enemy, but then it also adds Strength to damage. I couldn't really think of any game that didn't work upon the assumption that most of the damage is done by the strenght of the attacker instead of being done by the weapon itself.
What do you guys think?

DM Nate
2014-06-20, 09:38 AM
I see you've never stabbed a guy.

Depending on the weapon, the amount of force behind it makes a definite difference. Bludgeoning is self-explanatory; more force applied equals more force transferred to the entire body of the enemy. Slashing weapons are also fairly straight-forward; the more strength behind a swing, the further through the body the sword will cleave before it stops.

Piercing is the only one that you may be able to have an argument for. Still, poking a hole two inches deep is a much smaller injury than pushing it all the way through.

Kalmageddon
2014-06-20, 09:43 AM
I see you've never stabbed a guy.

Depending on the weapon, the amount of force behind it makes a definite difference. Bludgeoning is self-explanatory; more force applied equals more force transferred to the entire body of the enemy. Slashing weapons are also fairly straight-forward; the more strength behind a swing, the further through the body the sword will cleave before it stops.

Piercing is the only one that you may be able to have an argument for. Still, poking a hole two inches deep is a much smaller injury than pushing it all the way through.

Chopped meat though and it's the cleaver that does most of the work. On a human body I'd say that anyone can stab a knife deep enough to make it fatal, unless there's bone in the way.
Depending of course where the knife hits.

The point I'm trying to make is that usually the Strength ability score does most of the damage in various systems, while in reality when it really would make a difference would be against something tougher than what the weapon can normally handle, as in, not human flesh.

Vinegar Tom
2014-06-20, 10:42 AM
I have to admit that I've never stabbed anybody either, or indeed bludgeoned anybody with a flanged mace. However, it's a very basic law of physics that any object which hits you will do more damage if it's moving faster, meaning that more force was applied to get it moving in the first place. With a melee weapon, force means strength. It's true that a 2-inch stab-wound can kill you, but if for some reason you are forced to let someone stab you in a completely random part of your body, and it's a choice between a 2-inch and a 6-inch stab, which are you going to choose? That situation is already covered by the Critical Hit game mechanic. DEX may increase your chance of scoring a crit, but STR has a major influence on the damage you will cause with every weapon all the time, apart from things like crossbows and guns where it's totally irrelevant.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-06-20, 10:46 AM
A stronger person will be able to get an edged weapon to penetrate deeper into their target, even cutting through bone, or carry a cut further through the skin, causing more blood loss. They'd also potentially be able to smash through a defence, causing light injuries where a weaker person wouldn't be able to.

A stronger person would also be able to wield a heavier weapon, so you could potentially start multiplying the effects of higher strength - although you could then get into issues based around their own momentum. :smallwink:


Chopped meat though and it's the cleaver that does most of the work.
To an extent, but there's a lot of difference in how far you'll got through if you just drop the cleaver on it from an inch above, or bring it down with a reasonable amount of strength from six inches above.


On a human body I'd say that anyone can stab a knife deep enough to make it fatal, unless there's bone in the way.
Depending of course where the knife hits.
And for a stronger person, there's more potentially fatal areas available to them - some of which may have bone in the way.

Waar
2014-06-20, 10:48 AM
The melee weapon that can reliably kill or injure its opponent, without any strength behind it, is quite rare. So it isn't unresonable to let strength affect damage in some respect. Now in most roleplaying games I have seen strength has a marginal but not critical effect on melee damage, but outside of high damage resistance cases, I have not seen any games (exept D&D) where strength matters more than the weapon (or the skill to use it) for any human level of strength.

John Longarrow
2014-06-20, 10:55 AM
Kalmageddon
Two things to remember regarding strength and damage
1) Unlike a nice piece of meat that's stationary on a cutting block, most targets in combat are moving. This effectively reduces the amount of force from the blow by how much they move with it.
2) The piece of meat is actively trying to put stuff in your way. Strength overcomes the defenders blocking moves, once more adding more damage.

Frozen_Feet
2014-06-20, 10:57 AM
Strenght does increase the force of impact and damage done, yes. I don't recall the exact equation, but putting more mass/raw strenght behind a strike increases the impact in direct proportion, while increasing velocity of a strike increases impact energy in a logarithmic (?) proportion.

So if mass of strike is doubled while velocity remains same, the energy is doubled. If velocity is doubled while mass remains the same, the impact energy is tripled.

Human body produces strenght in several way. When it comes to striking with weapons, we're mostly in the realm of plyometrics and explosive strenght - trying to extert as much force as possible, as fast as possible. Even a relatively small and thin person can accelerate a light weapon (such as a knife) into dangerous speeds, but after a point (or if switching to a heavier weapon) they're going to need more muscle mass to accelerate it faster, which also puts more weight and raw strenght behind the blow.

Now, you don't need all that much force to cause lethal injuries to a human with a weapon, especially if it's bladed or piercing. Rather the difference becomes sever "important arteries vs. sever a whole limb" or "cause lethal concussion vs. cave a man's skull in". Things change if the target is wearing some sort of armor - something tougher than human flesh, as you put it. If you're fighting someone in padded armor with a Bo stick, your stick has to move much quicker and with much greater force to inflict the same level of injuries. Likewise, a steel spike or a warhammer can pierce through steel armor, but it's not something achievable with a light tap.

Seppo87
2014-06-20, 11:06 AM
I don't know about other systems, but in dnd you fight huge monsters that won't die in a single blow so it's appropriate to differentiate between average and high strength

Angelalex242
2014-06-20, 11:12 AM
You're right, the weapon does do most of the work.

Greatsword:2d6+0 for average strength.
Greatsword:2d6+3 for above average
Greatsword:2d6+6 for max (18) strength

The weapon, doing an average of 7 damage...

Accounts for all, 70%, or 53% of the weapon.

With a longsword...

d8
d8+2
d8+4

And now it's all, 75%, or 50% of the total.

jaydubs
2014-06-20, 11:33 AM
Hit points don't have to represent literal toughness. It's an abstraction of toughness, but also things like training, luck, and experience. When you hit harder, you're not just better at cutting flesh. But you can also knock people off balance, bruise them through armor, break through guards, etc.

And as has been mentioned, in d&d you're often fighting things that aren't human. Very often. For instance, if you're taking a swing at a larger sized earth elemental, you're literally trying to cleave through tons of rock and stone. How hard you hit is going to make a huge difference in that case.

Jarawara
2014-06-20, 01:21 PM
I could see your strength bonus limited by the quality of the blow. I mean, if you just nicked it for a single point of damage, should you be getting +4 damage to that scratch? Yes, you *could* say that the +4 damage represents your ability to push your weapon closer to the enemy, and thus the scratch on the elbow instead was hitting center of his arm and cutting it off completely. But you could also say that the cut on the arm is just a cut on the arm, and your great strength was misdirected due to a poor attack.

Proposed rule, if you wanted to consider it:
Strength bonus to damage cannot exceed the actual roll for damage.

That way, the nick on the arm is a *teensy* bit worse, but it's still just a nick on the arm.

Alternate proposed rule, if you want to get messy:
Strength bonus to damage cannot exceed the die roll over the number needed to hit.

Therefore, if you exactly what you needed to hit, and no more, then you get no bonus to damage. If you roll 6 over what is needed to hit, you have room for up to +6 strength bonus. This rule could also be adapted for other types of bonuses, for obvious reasons.

Either of those two options could get you what you are looking for, IMO.

*~*~*

Or, if you want a third alternative:
Leave the system the f**k alone. Too many little rules make players unhappy. Unhappy players rebel, or at the very least lose interest and stay too focused on the rules, and not on the roleplay.

Of course... I've not been very good at following that advice... :)

Kalmageddon
2014-06-20, 01:36 PM
I could see your strength bonus limited by the quality of the blow. I mean, if you just nicked it for a single point of damage, should you be getting +4 damage to that scratch?

This is more or less what I was thinking, in most systems the strength of the blow should represent how well you can overcome the toughness of an object or an enemy, but the entity of the damage itself should be determined by how accurate your hit was.
I feel this is a design decision that hasn't been explored all that much (at all?) in most games and it could have potential to spice things up, basically.

Spiryt
2014-06-20, 01:44 PM
Quite a lot, I guess.

And most systems handle it decnetly, at least - strenght counts, but other things often count much more.

Knaight
2014-06-20, 01:54 PM
Something that hasn't been mentioned here is that strength is useful in helping you move faster in general with the weapon. You'll be pulled less off balance by a lunge and able to recover faster, you'll be able to reverse the direction of a swing faster, you'll be able to do better winding, etc. Even if the weapon was completely unreliant on force of impact (e.g. a lightsaber) that would be useful.

Jarawara
2014-06-20, 02:04 PM
The one thing I never liked about strength bonuses (a dislike which actually lead me to consider my previous proposal for my actual game), was that with even a modest bonus to damage, most level one humanoids died automatically in one hit. Since orcs and goblins were the mainstay of our game, having the autokill feature seemed... unrealistic at best.

That may be more of a product of my era - 1980 AD&D - since most people did not have strength bonuses at all (only 17 and up!), and when you did get a strength that high, you probably got yourself an 18 and rolled percentages for additional damage. As a result, most people had no bonus to damage, and a few had +3 and up. Most people required two hits to kill that orc, a few had the advantage of autokills. There was no gradual scale like there is now.

It did lead to a cool story where the 8th level Dwarf warrior Anakin Pitz was in combat with some gnolls, scored a hit, and *did not* kill it outright. It was the first time he had ever hit anything that did not die in the first blow. He was so amazed, he voluntarily skipped the next two rounds to represent his character's shock. :-)

However, nowadays hit points are higher, and strength bonuses are more gradual and thus more available. I just don't think my problem exists anymore, and thus no need to change it.

draken50
2014-06-20, 03:16 PM
I would say that being stronger does always result in a more damage in melee.

Basically, I understand the concept of a maximal beneficial strength for a weapon. Lets say you wanted to hit someone with a piece of paper, being much stronger is not likely to cause you to be able to hit someone much "harder" with a piece of paper.

However, while this logic makes sense from a standpoint I would imagine this to be relatively worthless to consider from a game standpoint from a single hit perspective. The simplest reason is that yes. A being the size of a planet would potentially do less damage by hitting someone with a tree, than by just hitting them. So, it makes sense, but you're not really going to have your characters attacking folks with feathers or single pieces of paper, and if they are... its to play with the system and be silly, and if I was gm-ing, would probably get them killed.

The other factor is, that attack and damage roles in most systems, are described in the manual of the results of periods of fighting, 6 seconds I believe is 3.5s ect. Rather than the results of a single sword swing/punch/club smash ect.

In melee, from a martial arts perspective and having practiced in armor, being stronger can allow you too control your opponent more, to create weaknesses or openings that would allow you to do more "damage" beyond just the strength of your swing.

So a dagger may not seem like it would do more damage in the hands of a giant, unless you consider that he might be able to grab on to you for a short period time and slam that dagger into a "damaging" point. It's not really covered in grappling as he's not trying to take you to the ground and it's a short time frame, but it can be a decent explanation for the additional damage done beyond the power added to a single strike.

Mr. Mask
2014-06-20, 04:49 PM
Karmageddon: Strength can help with damage. But as you implied, it is the lesser factor. Big guys will sometimes try to cut through a tatami mat, and they do swing very hard. Their cutting technique is rubbish, and they don't manage to split the silly thing. Then, you get to see the little seventy year old man cut the mat like butter.

Strength still has a bunch of uses. You can wrestle people better, recover from swings faster (as Knaight mentioned), carry heavier weapons (as was also mentioned), and not be tired as quickly from smaller weapons. Some weapons will appreciate strength more than others, like punching.

draken50
2014-06-20, 05:04 PM
Okay, well I actually do Iaijutsu and have done tamashigiri on many occasions, and I can say from personal experience that the "Strength does not help" dogma is bunk. Especially because fighting is not cutting an immobile piece of mat.

First off... immobile piece of mat. Big guys cutting tatami aren't thrusting either which is definitely a valid tactic. Second, while using katana to cut tatami is a skill based exercise, strength does not mean that there is no skill. It's big fallacy people seem to get into. Strength <> Lack of skill. A stronger sword user can use a heavier sword. You know, because similar weapons do not mean they are the same.

A heavier sword with more power to wield it, can cut easier, especially larger targets, than a smaller one can.

If you think strength doesn't matter, duck tape a katana to a hippopotamas. then piss it off and fight it. It has no skill but plenty of strength and I'd bet 10-1 you'd die before it did.

Mr. Mask
2014-06-20, 05:20 PM
You might want to read my post again. I already pointed out stronger persons can use heavier weapons.

If you can't use your cutting technique outside of practice... I'd get a better instructor.

Wardog
2014-06-20, 05:54 PM
Strenght does increase the force of impact and damage done, yes. I don't recall the exact equation, but putting more mass/raw strenght behind a strike increases the impact in direct proportion, while increasing velocity of a strike increases impact energy in a logarithmic (?) proportion.

So if mass of strike is doubled while velocity remains same, the energy is doubled. If velocity is doubled while mass remains the same, the impact energy is tripled.

It's quadratic, not logarithmic.

kinetic energy = 0.5 * m * v^2

So doubling the velocity quadruples the energy. (At least, the energy of the weapon. How much is transfered to the target will depend on a whole lot of other things, and I'm not sure how "energy transfered to target" translates to "damage" either).

Thrudd
2014-06-20, 06:26 PM
This is more or less what I was thinking, in most systems the strength of the blow should represent how well you can overcome the toughness of an object or an enemy, but the entity of the damage itself should be determined by how accurate your hit was.
I feel this is a design decision that hasn't been explored all that much (at all?) in most games and it could have potential to spice things up, basically.

It's a trade-off between a complex but more accurate model of combat and a more abstracted system that requires less math and plays faster.
I don't know what games you are thinking of, but in D&D combat is extremely abstracted. HP and AC as well as all the ability scores each represent a variety of things. Strength is not only the ability to generate force with your muscles, but also general athletic ability and natural fighting instincts. A person with high strength has a better chance of hitting because they are better at fighting, of which muscular development is just one part.

Advancement in level and the attending increase in attack bonus or to-hit charts represents increased skill which will eventually far surpass any natural talent received from ability scores.
Given an equal level or training/skill, being stronger and more naturally good at fighting gives an advantage.

Damage dealt and HP totals are likewise an abstraction which represent more than just physical toughness and "meat". HP also represents luck, fatigue, and skill at avoiding or redirecting attacks. The damage dealt therefore represents not just how deep of a cut or how broken the bones are, but overcoming and negating all those things which HP represents.

The abstraction does break down some when you get into magical items and enhancement bonuses from various sources. Part of that is unavoidable, as some compromise must be made in the interest of keeping the game somewhat simple and playable. Other problems occur as later editions have tried to become more granular and specific while at the same time not addressing or changing the highly abstracted basics of the game.

It would not be hard to create a system that was a more accurate model of combat, but increased complexity may result in decreased playability.

Averis Vol
2014-06-20, 09:14 PM
Now, this is sort of a strange question that I've been thinking about, regarding a game mechanic that we basically take for granted.
Almost all game systems out there equates how strong a character is to how much damage he will be able to do in melee. On the surface this makes perfect sense, but then I thought: would being stabbed with a sword by someone of average strenght really be any less serious than being stabbed by a big hunk of a guy?
What about being smashed with a flanged mace? Would the strenght of the man wielding the mace change the outcome all that much?
Basically what I'm saying is... Don't weapons do most of the work anyway? A sword or a knife is made sharp exactly because it's able to cut into flesh even when not much force is put behind it, after all. And it's the weight of a mace that delivers the hurt.
Being strong doesn't affect much aside from your ability to wield the weapon without straining a muscle or getting tired, I would think.

Wouldn't it make more sense if the Strength score of a character represented his ability to ignore amor instead? Because that's basically the only instance I could think of when being really strong could help, when the enemy has an armor that the weapon you are wielding can't reliably penetrate.

D&D sort of does it, with Strength being your key ability score when making a melee attack to overcome the armor of the enemy, but then it also adds Strength to damage. I couldn't really think of any game that didn't work upon the assumption that most of the damage is done by the strenght of the attacker instead of being done by the weapon itself.
What do you guys think?

In real world combat, strength is actually one of the least important qualities for a good swordsman. Of course he needs to be strong enough to wield his weapon of choice, and realistically, all that a high strength means is that you can swing your weapon faster. But besides that, the ability to adapt to your opponents strikes and quickly interpose your own blade is a lot more important. So if we were to realistically stat out combat, your combat modifier would be some combination of dex, wis and int to hit. Damage would be part dex and part strength, and combat longevity would be based on con (like con score rounds of combat before you could no longer effectively fight).

Matt easton explains strength in combat amasingly in this video, if you want an idea of accurate swordsmanship, his video's will do great to point you on the right direction.

strength in swordsmanship (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip-_vEPotYo)

EDIT: Also, it doesn't matter how strong you are (in realistic means, I'm pretty sure superman could punch through full plate with a longsword) you arent going to penetrate fullplate with a sword. You will have to attack the weakspots like the joints, eye slits or the gorget. all smashing his quarter inch thick armor with your sword is going to do is break your blade. the commonality of fullplate at the end of the medieval period is exactly why techniques like halfswording (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-sword) were invented.

Knaight
2014-06-20, 10:52 PM
In real world combat, strength is actually one of the least important qualities for a good swordsman. Of course he needs to be strong enough to wield his weapon of choice, and realistically, all that a high strength means is that you can swing your weapon faster. But besides that, the ability to adapt to your opponents strikes and quickly interpose your own blade is a lot more important. So if we were to realistically stat out combat, your combat modifier would be some combination of dex, wis and int to hit. Damage would be part dex and part strength, and combat longevity would be based on con (like con score rounds of combat before you could no longer effectively fight).

I really wouldn't put intelligence in there, and even wisdom is dubious (though perception is really useful, particularly outside of duel situations where there's more than one person to keep track of). The "ability to adapt to your opponents strikes and quickly interpose your own blade" is a learned skill. It's part muscle memory, part situational awareness, with a great deal of entirely subconscious built up intuition, all of which are probably trained and definitely practiced. From a realism perspective, having skill be the most important thing, with high strength being helpful and low strength being detrimental would be the way to go.

An obvious way to do this would be to have skill be used as the baseline, with everything else being a small modifier. In more granular systems, it would even be a conditional modifier - you might have skill 4, +1 if you have a big enough strength/speed/reach/battlefield awareness/whatever difference over someone else.

Mr. Mask
2014-06-20, 11:57 PM
The rate your brain processes the situation still makes a difference to your subconscious intuition.

Knaight
2014-06-21, 12:05 AM
The rate your brain processes the situation still makes a difference to your subconscious intuition.

Sure, but that's not really the sort of mental capability usually modeled with intelligence.

Mr. Mask
2014-06-21, 12:13 AM
Fair enough.

dramatic flare
2014-06-21, 03:47 AM
I really wouldn't put intelligence in there, and even wisdom is dubious (though perception is really useful, particularly outside of duel situations where there's more than one person to keep track of). The "ability to adapt to your opponents strikes and quickly interpose your own blade" is a learned skill. It's part muscle memory, part situational awareness, with a great deal of entirely subconscious built up intuition, all of which are probably trained and definitely practiced. From a realism perspective, having skill be the most important thing, with high strength being helpful and low strength being detrimental would be the way to go.

An obvious way to do this would be to have skill be used as the baseline, with everything else being a small modifier. In more granular systems, it would even be a conditional modifier - you might have skill 4, +1 if you have a big enough strength/speed/reach/battlefield awareness/whatever difference over someone else.

All I could think of when I read this was, "isn't that basically what base attack bonus and feats model?" Skill with your particular form of combat is, in Dnd terminology, just character level to some degree or another.

Knaight
2014-06-21, 03:52 AM
All I could think of when I read this was, "isn't that basically what base attack bonus and feats model?" Skill with your particular form of combat is, in Dnd terminology, just character level to some degree or another.

Pretty much, though there's some weirdness in what overlaps, and some weirdness in defenses.

dramatic flare
2014-06-21, 04:31 AM
Pretty much, though there's some weirdness in what overlaps, and some weirdness in defenses.

Yeah. Falling into pit traps and impaling your limbs on the stakes at the bottom wouldn't give you faster reflexes over time, but that's a different quandary.

spineyrequiem
2014-06-21, 06:42 AM
Skallagrim also has a pretty good video on this topic

Why strength is less important in a sword fight than you might think (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cNO6uRqUcE&index=10&list=PLE6058E5F6967E5B8)

What he notes is that while, yes, if I'm really strong I can cut an unarmoured guy in half with one blow, most of the time I don't need to do that; I just need to cut a major artery and he'll die pretty soon. If I overdo the power, I can't react to him trying something, and even if he can't block, he can step out of the way and stab me. Alternatively, even if I do manage to get him, there's a good chance my blade's going to get stuck; not good.

Against an armoured opponent, if you have a bladed weapon, strength isn't that helpful because just bashing him will blunt your blade. Half-swording's the way to go, and that's far more about technique than strength. Hitting him with a blunt object will, obviously, be hurtier the stronger you are, but here you again have problems of telegraphing your blows and being unable to react.

Strength is, as he notes, handy if you get into a grapple, but who would willingly break out the grapple rules?

Jay R
2014-06-22, 11:25 PM
A heavy hammer blow can knock in a nail further than a light one.

With an axe, yes, you should let gravity do most of the work, but a heavy axe can cut deeper than a light one.

A smith bends the iron more with a heavy blow than a light one.

A strong punch hurts more than a weak one.

A .44 does lots more damage than a .22.

Even with the same caliber of bullet, added powder generates more power and can cause more damage.

Yes, the power behind a blow affects the amount of damage it does.

Averis Vol
2014-06-23, 12:30 AM
I really wouldn't put intelligence in there, and even wisdom is dubious (though perception is really useful, particularly outside of duel situations where there's more than one person to keep track of). The "ability to adapt to your opponents strikes and quickly interpose your own blade" is a learned skill. It's part muscle memory, part situational awareness, with a great deal of entirely subconscious built up intuition, all of which are probably trained and definitely practiced. From a realism perspective, having skill be the most important thing, with high strength being helpful and low strength being detrimental would be the way to go.

An obvious way to do this would be to have skill be used as the baseline, with everything else being a small modifier. In more granular systems, it would even be a conditional modifier - you might have skill 4, +1 if you have a big enough strength/speed/reach/battlefield awareness/whatever difference over someone else.

Well, for some reason intelligence is associated with knowledge skills, which leads me to believe knowledge=memory. While much of swordplay is reaction, at some point you have to actively learn how to close lines against certain attacks, what type of enemy to halfsword against and how to properly fight an opponent with a specific weapon (axes work differently than swords, which work differently than spear and so forth and so on, but I gather you know that.)

That's essentially the only reason I included intelligence in my list. Realistically I would say int indeed would go into a skill category, but that really isn't distinguished in D&D.

Erik Vale
2014-06-23, 12:39 AM
*Skips to the end after reading a bit*
Strength matters a lot. Where strength matters little requires special rules for hit locations and the sort, which is present in games like heros, gurps, etc, systems generally considered [unfairly, I've seen fairly complex bits of DnD] complex. These systems also have rules available where strength is important... Up until the point where you break your weapon because it's not hardy enough for you to use.

So yes, strength matters as much as it's presented to... In systems that don't have rules for "I stab him in the eye... For 1".

Mr. Mask
2014-06-23, 02:11 AM
Erik: That is inaccurate. Take a military weapon to any part of the body, and even a frail person can get some devastating results with a few minutes instruction. Improvised weapons like boxcutters have been used to very deadly effect, and you can't use a lot of strength with those (holding the guy down is still easier if you're stronger).

If your weapon was made with any skill, there isn't really a chance of it breaking aside from misuse.


Jay: Main benefit of making your weapon heavier is dealing with armour. A light axe is thoroughly capable of incapacitating an unarmoured person.

On the note with bullets, remember that armour piercing and high velocity rounds can end up doing less damage, putting a clean hole through the target instead of releasing their energy into the body. You get something a bit similar with melee weapons, where armour piercing tips tend to do less damage than wide blades.

In general, you also need to remember that you're not wailing on your opponent as hard as you can to begin with. Swinging for the fences exposes yourself to tighter cuts and actions, and doesn't accomplish much unless your weapon was really ineffective against their armour. It is true that with something like fists, physical strength is a lot more important, both in the damage you deal out and how much punches hurt you (weight classes exist for a reason).

Erik Vale
2014-06-23, 03:50 AM
Erik: That is inaccurate. Take a military weapon to any part of the body, and even a frail person can get some devastating results with a few minutes instruction. Improvised weapons like boxcutters have been used to very deadly effect, and you can't use a lot of strength with those (holding the guy down is still easier if you're stronger).

Thing is, that's normal people. DnD land people with the huge strength mods hefting around with power attack would quite easily misuse a sword into oblivion. And I did say that strength is only important with games where hit locations/bleed out/etc aren't looked at, only HP, I fully understand with 5 minutes show and tell [if remembered in the heat of combat] weapons of all kind become rather lethal when used on the human body.

Mr. Mask
2014-06-23, 04:20 AM
Fair enough. In the context of supernatural strength, you do get to the point where weapons are almost holding you back. Though DnD can't quite make up its mind on that--I think 18 Strength had fairly mundane carrying capacity, despite producing damage equivalent to an average, "longsword," swing.

Kalmageddon
2014-06-23, 08:29 AM
Skallagrim also has a pretty good video on this topic

Why strength is less important in a sword fight than you might think (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cNO6uRqUcE&index=10&list=PLE6058E5F6967E5B8)

What he notes is that while, yes, if I'm really strong I can cut an unarmoured guy in half with one blow, most of the time I don't need to do that; I just need to cut a major artery and he'll die pretty soon. If I overdo the power, I can't react to him trying something, and even if he can't block, he can step out of the way and stab me. Alternatively, even if I do manage to get him, there's a good chance my blade's going to get stuck; not good.

Against an armoured opponent, if you have a bladed weapon, strength isn't that helpful because just bashing him will blunt your blade. Half-swording's the way to go, and that's far more about technique than strength. Hitting him with a blunt object will, obviously, be hurtier the stronger you are, but here you again have problems of telegraphing your blows and being unable to react.

Strength is, as he notes, handy if you get into a grapple, but who would willingly break out the grapple rules?

Exactly what I'm talking about.

Spiryt
2014-06-23, 09:08 AM
The whole 'overdoing a blow' simplifies matters too much.

Is someone is 'strong' it can be easily interpreted as ability to deal more forceful blows with smaller windup.

If someone has powerful wrists, arms, other joints etc. his strikes and thrusts would be stiffer and more ungiving and ferocius.

At the moment of impact, target will have to give, not strikers arms.

And so on.

That's without going further into complete abstraction thats D&D combat is.

And saying that whole lot of wounds will be fatal with minimum force applied is both absolutely correct and ultimately not very relevant.

Bit like saying that strenght is not needed in dock labour, because some loads are rather light and there are cranes and stuff.


All in all, stories, sagas and myths RPGs dwell on are full of mighty heroes dealing tremendous blows, for a reason.

Socratov
2014-06-23, 09:35 AM
Well, consider the rapier (or really, any fencing sword that relies on the move: stick 'em with the pointy end). so, if a person stabs someone with it, the sword will flex, maybe even produce a drill like effect (because of the flexing in the tip it starts turning around a bit). Now a weak person will encounter this resistance, having more difficulty of pushing the point of the rapier through the human being to reach any vital areas. A stronger person, however, will push through: this will make the point move about a bit (more tissue damage), and while the sword flexes and straightens out the sword will move around and deal even more tissue damage. Add to that the face that a strong person will be able to make the point reach deeper into vital areas and thus deal more damage.

tl;dr: weak person: less flex, less depth -> less damage. Strong person, more flex, more depth -> more damage.

Tvtyrant
2014-06-23, 10:44 AM
Strength is, as he notes, handy if you get into a grapple, but who would willingly break out the grapple rules?

Realistic knights? Honestly every sword fight involves grappling and pushing, and with armor on the stronger person has a massive advantage.

Jay R
2014-06-23, 12:42 PM
Jay: Main benefit of making your weapon heavier is dealing with armour.

That's certainly one reason. But let's ignore armor completely. Have a nine-year-old hit you as hard as he can. Then have a grown blacksmith do it. The second one will do more damage than the first.

[QUOTE=Mr. Mask;17668486]A light axe is thoroughly capable of incapacitating an unarmoured person.

Of course. And it's thoroughly capable of not incapacitating him. The question is whether 100 hits from a light axe to 100 people from a weak person will do on average the same amount of damage as 100 hits to 100 people from a strong person. I recognize that reducing the complexities of the human body to hit points is a grossly simplistic model. But in either the simplistic D&D model or in the real world, a stronger blow can do more damage on average, over the entire gamut of all blows thrown well, poorly, or awkwardly, and parried or blocked incompletely, softly, or not at all..


On the note with bullets, remember that armour piercing and high velocity rounds can end up doing less damage, putting a clean hole through the target instead of releasing their energy into the body. You get something a bit similar with melee weapons, where armour piercing tips tend to do less damage than wide blades.

Yes, of course, and melee weapons don't work that way, so this fact is completely irrelevant. That's why I left it out. Comparing only the bullets that give up all their energy by not going through at high speed, the ones with more force do more damage (on average).


In general, you also need to remember that you're not wailing on your opponent as hard as you can to begin with. Swinging for the fences exposes yourself to tighter cuts and actions, and doesn't accomplish much unless your weapon was really ineffective against their armour. It is true that with something like fists, physical strength is a lot more important, both in the damage you deal out and how much punches hurt you (weight classes exist for a reason).

It depends. With a rapier thrust, the power doesn't matter. But with a longsword, greatsword, etc., the manuals discuss how to get more power. Marozzo teaches footwork to add to the power, and Fiore de Liberi teaches half-swording for the same reason. Di Grassi talks about where the power in the blade is - that's why he divides it into four sections. Lichtenauer only shows power moves with the longsword.

Incanur
2014-06-23, 01:14 PM
Anyone who thinks strength wasn't critical to medieval- or Renaissance-era close combat needs to read more primary sources. Even a number of iconic Italian rapier masters like Salvator Fabris considered strength a major advantage because a stronger fencer can easier knock a weaker one's sword offline as well as prevail if it comes to grappling. Skill and coordination matter more, of course, and it takes little power to thrust deeply with a sharp point unless there's bone in way, but strength remains important even in an unarmored sword duel. Add in armor and you need as much might as possible to effectively injure foes.

Knaight
2014-06-23, 02:42 PM
Anyone who thinks strength wasn't critical to medieval- or Renaissance-era close combat needs to read more primary sources. Even a number of iconic Italian rapier masters like Salvator Fabris considered strength a major advantage because a stronger fencer can easier knock a weaker one's sword offline as well as prevail if it comes to grappling. Skill and coordination matter more, of course, and it takes little power to thrust deeply with a sharp point unless there's bone in way, but strength remains important even in an unarmored sword duel. Add in armor and you need as much might as possible to effectively injure foes.

I'm not sure I'd say coordination (in general) matters more. Very uncoordinated people particularly practiced in a particular thing (e.g fighting with a sword) are frequently well coordinated in that niche. It's essentially a subset of skill.

That said, I'm entirely in agreement regarding skill mattering more. I've fought people who aren't very strong and are pretty skilled, and I've fought huge people who are upward of 7 feet, built like a tank, and have no idea of what they're doing (which also means that they are all sots of slow). The second is much easier to deal with.

Incanur
2014-06-23, 03:28 PM
Yeah, "coordination" isn't best word for what I'm trying to get across. In D&D terms it's dexterity, but that's not quite right either. To be long-winded, I mean inherent aptitude for speed, precision, and judgment of timing and distance. At least in my experience, some folks appear naturally better at this than others. I'm not particularly good or particularly bad at these things myself - maybe a little below average - and I can feel the difference compared with folks who're gifted or the opposite.

I've also sparred against stronger folks with surprisingly good results, though I do attribute part of this to the sporting aspect of sparring. I think if they'd been trying to kill me it would have been harder by far.

Knaight
2014-06-23, 03:45 PM
I've also sparred against stronger folks with surprisingly good results, though I do attribute part of this to the sporting aspect of sparring. I think if they'd been trying to kill me it would have been harder by far.

While I do think that's part of it, I can easily see it not being harder with some of them. Part of this is that I tend to have less of a strength disadvantage against the stronger folks (I'm 6'4", mass and leverage alone compensate for a lot at that height), part of it is I use a spear. Still, people who aren't very skilled tend to be really slow, and it's often very easy to get in a quick stab to the chest, often with a lot of power behind it.

FidgetySquirrel
2014-06-23, 05:24 PM
Keep in mind, carrying capacity weirdness aside, a +0 damage modifier is the average for a human adult. By RAW, a +2(+3 for a two-handed attack) is the damage modifier for a trained soldier. That's adding about a dagger's worth of damage to a longsword attack. The STR mod only starts to surpass weapon damage itself if you're using a small weapon, like a dagger, or you possess superhuman strength. Obviously, most high level PCs that are actually using a weapon are going to have outrageously high STR mods, but that's like comparing Clark Kent wielding a Valyrian steel blade with some random guy wielding a plain old iron sword.

Sure, the combat mechanics aren't perfect, but they get the job done just fine. Also, if we start changing mechanics based solely on logic, that will open up a can of worms of Pandora's Box proportions that may never be closed. It just doesn't seem worth it, as DnD is a game, not a dedicated medieval combat simulator.

Mr. Mask
2014-06-23, 08:55 PM
Sagas dwell on mighty blows for a reason: Because they sound cool.


Socratov: You'd need a pretty blunt blade for it to flex off a person.



That's certainly one reason. But let's ignore armor completely. Have a nine-year-old hit you as hard as he can. Then have a grown blacksmith do it. The second one will do more damage than the first.
Yes, physical strength does make a large difference to barehand fighting. Kids can't beat up grown sumo wrestlers with their bare hands. With blades and guns, strength becomes less key.


Of course. And it's thoroughly capable of not incapacitating him. The question is whether 100 hits from a light axe to 100 people from a weak person will do on average the same amount of damage as 100 hits to 100 people from a strong person. I recognize that reducing the complexities of the human body to hit points is a grossly simplistic model. But in either the simplistic D&D model or in the real world, a stronger blow can do more damage on average, over the entire gamut of all blows thrown well, poorly, or awkwardly, and parried or blocked incompletely, softly, or not at all..
A light axe is thoroughly capable of not incapcitating someone? You could nick them so that the size of the axe was inconsequential, or you could make such a poor swing that even a heavy axe would do little. But if you hit them solidly, a light hatchet will destroy ribs and disable organs.

The average damage is improved by a bigger weapon, your subpar hits will inflict worse wounds. Solid hits aren't really going to see much difference aside from looking nastier, unless your opponent is on PCP and you need to destroy their brain or cut them in half like those annoying fast zombies games are swapping to. If we swap the context to an army, then that statistical difference becomes more important (providing your soldiers are strong enough to make effective use of the heavier weapon in formation). Strength in general has a lot more sway when it comes to armies, since that effects your ability to carry equipment, wounded men, and to endure hardship.


Yes, of course, and melee weapons don't work that way, so this fact is completely irrelevant. That's why I left it out. Comparing only the bullets that give up all their energy by not going through at high speed, the ones with more force do more damage (on average).
If they don't understand the point I mentioned, it's easy to misconstrue that for meaning higher velocity always means a more damaging round. Leaving that out leads to misunderstanding


It depends. With a rapier thrust, the power doesn't matter. But with a longsword, greatsword, etc., the manuals discuss how to get more power. Marozzo teaches footwork to add to the power, and Fiore de Liberi teaches half-swording for the same reason. Di Grassi talks about where the power in the blade is - that's why he divides it into four sections. Lichtenauer only shows power moves with the longsword.
You need good footing, or you won't have a good swing or strong control of your blade. Lichtenauer swings are strong, but they aren't swinging for the fences or wailing, like novices sometimes get into (that or feather-duster play).


Incanur: The subject was how much damage strength inflicts. In the case of duels, grappling, control of your sword and your opponent's, the size of your stride and your reach, those are important factors. As you point out, skill is a more critical skill, but strength certainly is helpful.

If you have an ineffective weapon for the armour at hand, then strength becomes a lot more important for damaging your opponent, as with unarmoured fisticuffs. Since effective anti-armour weapons also tended to be heavy, strength still plays a key role when it comes to heavy armour (it also helps with wearing the stuff, even if armour's weight is tremendously exaggerated).

holywhippet
2014-06-23, 10:12 PM
Yes, physical strength does make a large difference to barehand fighting. Kids can't beat up grown sumo wrestlers with their bare hands. With blades and guns, strength becomes less key.


Very much so. Go and find someone who is fairly weak and ask them to punch you. Chances are it will hurt a bit and might leave you with a bruise. Then go ask a heavyweight boxer to hit you as hard as they can. Expect it to hurt a lot, unless they hit you in the head so hard you can't think straight.

As for weapons, grab an axe and try chopping a log in two. Then give the same axe to someone a lot stronger and let them have a go. A weak enough blow won't do much more than mark a notch in a log while a hard enough blow will cut quite deeply. There's a reason that people who win competitive wood cutting competitions are strong. As long as each hit is on target it's all about how hard each blow is.

Your opponent moving around in combat will make some difference in real combat, but an attack with enough power and speed will be very hard to avoid.

Mr. Mask
2014-06-23, 10:56 PM
Log splitting is a good example of the damage properties of an axe, but not of its quality or use in combat.

Trying to attack harder and faster is not a good idea. Either you wind up too much and get cut down, or you miss and get cut down before you recover. People are very slippery, and hitting them is the tricky part. Once you've hit them, hurting them with weapons is distressingly easy.

Averis Vol
2014-06-24, 12:57 AM
As for weapons, grab an axe and try chopping a log in two. Then give the same axe to someone a lot stronger and let them have a go. A weak enough blow won't do much more than mark a notch in a log while a hard enough blow will cut quite deeply. There's a reason that people who win competitive wood cutting competitions are strong. As long as each hit is on target it's all about how hard each blow is.

Your opponent moving around in combat will make some difference in real combat, but an attack with enough power and speed will be very hard to avoid.

This is a very poor example. An axe is a weapon with a very small point of percussion that also terminates on a fine edge. If you don't use an axe often and you swing hog wild at a log you are going to find that a large number of your cuts strike at an angle and end up getting deflected to the flat. It doesn't matter how strong the person is if they don't have the skill to properly place the blow. Someone can be significantly weaker than another, but if they know how to properly align the blow, the weight carried by the axe will be more than sufficient to cut a large split in the wood.

As far as weapon damage goes, yea, a stronger person can hit harder in theory, but it reaches a point where damage instead becomes excessive and unnecessary. If you try and bludgeon someone like a neanderthal with a longsword, you will do much less damage to the man in plate armor than the person who thrust his blade up between the gaps in the armor to the exposed meaty bits.

EDIT: again, skall has a very good video on the importance of edge alignment to delivering a blow (though he is using an arming sword in this example) Edge alignment. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLmzeGV1sQo)

I3igAl
2014-06-24, 02:27 AM
As for weapons, grab an axe and try chopping a log in two. Then give the same axe to someone a lot stronger and let them have a go. A weak enough blow won't do much more than mark a notch in a log while a hard enough blow will cut quite deeply. There's a reason that people who win competitive wood cutting competitions are strong. As long as each hit is on target it's all about how hard each blow is.

Log cutting is more about technique then strength actually. If you just fully wind up and swing at the log not much won't happen or you' ll cut quite deep only to get your axe stuck. If you just hit the right part it's pretty easy and doesn't need much strength at all.

Mr. Mask
2014-06-24, 05:27 AM
With strength letting you swing faster, you're not swinging so much faster that you get opportunities you wouldn't otherwise, and strong swordsmen don't swing more unless the other guy is just carrying too heavy a weapon. That bit of extra speed and force is handy, it makes it harder for your opponent to defend. Really, greater reach and stride, a heavier weapon, and more control in the bind and wrestling are greater assets of strength.

Still, it's important to not get into the mindset of harder and faster. A lot of people get into that mindset, and would be cut down if they took that into a case of self-defence.

If HP was stamina, you'd be burning it just by fighting or travelling. It wouldn't really matter if you were, "hit," either, because any attempt on your life is going to force you to spend energy to avoid it, and attacking ought to take more HP than defending.

Mr. Mask
2014-06-24, 07:07 AM
Strength could help you take the initiative in a fight. If your opponent is intimidated by your swings being slightly faster and stronger, it can make them defensive. If they're unwilling to attack and keep backing off, that would let you keep the initiative and attack more frequently. Skill and reach are more likely to cause that, as they're more intimidating factors.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-06-24, 07:15 AM
That depends. Some European fencing schools taught a very ritualised and "timed" fencing style, in which you maintain a strict pace at which you swing your weapon. Others basically "do what works." Effective combat techniques favour the latter approach, which genuinely favours those who are strong enough to set a faster pace. Being able to set the pace of a fight also means you are better able to exploit openings in your opponent's defence.
Surely by "those who are strong enough to set a faster pace", you're referring more to stamina rather than outright strength - kind of the reverse of some of the power lifters who can lift huge weights, but can only do so a few times because they simply can't get rid of the lactic acid from their muscles quickly enough, and thus they've got very little stamina.

I can see higher strength being of some use in arresting a particular move and bringing the weapon or a body part back into position, but again, that's probably more a part of the person's agility than how well developed their muscles are.

Frozen_Feet
2014-06-24, 07:23 AM
While stamina is important, that's very much not what's used to set pace. Plyometrics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyometrics) is where it's at. Agility, when talking about rapid acceleration and change of direction, is very much a matter of strenght and muscular development. Weak, untrained muscle is not capable of explosive strenght required for efficient striking.

draken50
2014-06-24, 09:30 AM
I always considered the combination of level, feats, and BAB to be more indicative of more mundane "Fighting prowess," with strength being an additional modifier.

As to the, "more damage than you need" argument, that doesn't really hold water for me. Yes, if someone stabs your brain through your eye with a pencil, from your perspective you're just as dead as if you were hit with a large meteor, but any observer would be able to plainly see the difference in "damage" as it were.

I don't believe anyone here would believe that fighting skill, or experience doesn't matter, but the argument that strength doesn't matter is absurd. There are diminishing returns in which it is more beneficial to train in your combat art than it is to develop strength, but I've never heard anyone who has actually fought say that being stronger doesn't help. I've seen it get misconstrued by students hearing the equivalent of "If you do this right, it can be used on a much stronger opponent" often missing that if the opponent knows how to counter what your doing their extra strength will often leave you in a very poor position.

Kalmageddon
2014-06-24, 12:11 PM
I always considered the combination of level, feats, and BAB to be more indicative of more mundane "Fighting prowess," with strength being an additional modifier.

As to the, "more damage than you need" argument, that doesn't really hold water for me. Yes, if someone stabs your brain through your eye with a pencil, from your perspective you're just as dead as if you were hit with a large meteor, but any observer would be able to plainly see the difference in "damage" as it were.

I don't believe anyone here would believe that fighting skill, or experience doesn't matter, but the argument that strength doesn't matter is absurd. There are diminishing returns in which it is more beneficial to train in your combat art than it is to develop strength, but I've never heard anyone who has actually fought say that being stronger doesn't help. I've seen it get misconstrued by students hearing the equivalent of "If you do this right, it can be used on a much stronger opponent" often missing that if the opponent knows how to counter what your doing their extra strength will often leave you in a very poor position.

The point is not that Strength doesn't matter AT ALL, the point is that it matters far less than what most systems would lead you to believe. :smallsigh:

draken50
2014-06-24, 04:04 PM
So in what specific manner does the abstract system not work for you?

I mean, comparing the strength requirements in 3.5 using deadlift and overhead press as a starting point. I mean, take Serge Redding. the guy set a record with a 502 lb. Clean and press. Which, judging by the SRD, would have put him at a strength score of 21, which also assumes a Deadlift of 920lbs. If you don't already know... that's a lot of weight, and a tremendous amount of strength.

That's a plus 5 modifier. Which works out to approximately 25% more effective in my mind, though my math may be off, to roll say, a result of 21 or higher, when using a d20.

To get even a +2 modifier or to be 10% more effective in that system, you would need to be able to press 175 lbs. overhead. I know very few people who can do that, and none who have done it without strength training.
Could a guy like the one who plays the Mountain on Game of Thrones have reached that with less effort, I would expect so, then again, he's pretty big.

If you don't think an untrained (lets presume) world record setting olympic level, strength athlete should be 25% more effective than another untrained, base 10 stated commoner in a fight.. well I don't know what to tell you.

That percentage only goes down as armor classes go up as well.

I did just realize my math was wrong, and that using a base 10 armor class with no dex modifier and no armor would make the Olympic world record setter about 50% more effective than an untrained fighter. (and that's at hitting, damage is another story altogether as the ranges on that get weird.)

Incanur
2014-06-24, 05:11 PM
Improvised weapons like boxcutters have been used to very deadly effect, and you can't use a lot of strength with those (holding the guy down is still easier if you're stronger).

Having to fight a duel with a boxcutter against a foe with even a chef's knife would be a sad situation. Boxcutters can kill and inflict horrible wounds in various ways, but they're still decidedly inferior as far as weapons go.


If your weapon was made with any skill, there isn't really a chance of it breaking aside from misuse.

In any hard-fought ancient, medieval, or Renaissance battle, weapons broke often enough. Period sources attest to this.

Mr. Mask
2014-06-24, 07:04 PM
Incanur: People who use boxcutters are either desperate, or know what they're doing. If the latter... a superior weapon is not likely to save you. Generally, it's not a fight--you're wounded and bleeding before you even realize there was danger. I wouldn't make out too much difference between a chef knife and a boxcutter to begin with. You can chop at the enemy enough to hopefully incapacitate them, or try to out-grapple them and stick the thing into their liver; but they might outmanoeuvre you and start cutting instead.

People have often made the mistake of thinking that because their weapon is a little longer that they're safer. But really, you aren't. Thinking too much of utilizing your reach is the same as thinking to hit harder and faster. It causes you to overextend yourself, putting your weapon in a weak position where it's easy to control.

There were plenty of low quality weapons that went to soldiers on a military campaign, and a lot of weapons poorly kept and misused for long periods of time. Constant use of a weapon can break it. In the context of being so strong you break your weapons, that'd only work if they were poor quality and you were misusing them.

Incanur
2014-06-24, 10:55 PM
Incanur: People who use boxcutters are either desperate, or know what they're doing. If the latter... a superior weapon is not likely to save you. Generally, it's not a fight--you're wounded and bleeding before you even realize there was danger.

Sure, but knives do this better. I know a person who successfully used a boxcutter for self-defense, so I'm aware they can be effective weapons under certain circumstance even going beyond surprise. They're still markedly inferior to knives and daggers.


I wouldn't make out too much difference between a chef knife and a boxcutter to begin with.

The boxcutters I'm familiar with - and I've used them for work - couldn't thrust worth much and might well fall apart if used in a slashing motion with too much force. A good chef's knife on the other hand resembles a rondel dagger in functionality.


People have often made the mistake of thinking that because their weapon is a little longer that they're safer. But really, you aren't. Thinking too much of utilizing your reach is the same as thinking to hit harder and faster. It causes you to overextend yourself, putting your weapon in a weak position where it's easy to control.

Historical masters in different systems had different opinions about this, but on the whole I disagree. Reach constitutes a key advantage in a duel in the open.


There were plenty of low quality weapons that went to soldiers on a military campaign, and a lot of weapons poorly kept and misused for long periods of time. Constant use of a weapon can break it.

That's part of it, but I also think armored combat is just inherently high stress for appropriately built (i.e. not too heavy) weapons.


In the context of being so strong you break your weapons, that'd only work if they were poor quality and you were misusing them.

Or if you're Beowulf. :smallsmile:

Mr. Mask
2014-06-24, 11:40 PM
Thinking too much about which weapon is superior is a third dangerous mentality. A committed attacker with an icepick is infinitely more dangerous than someone with a nuke they wouldn't dare use. Trusting in the strength of your weapon to save you is the same as saying a bigger army never lost to a smaller one.


The boxcutters I'm familiar with - and I've used them for work - couldn't thrust worth much and might well fall apart if used in a slashing motion with too much force. A good chef's knife on the other hand resembles a rondel dagger in functionality.
With a big enough chef knife you can use it that way, depending on how it's weighted. With most knives, you need to grab your opponent and slice. If someone tries to stab at you from a few feet away with a boxcutter, they're in the former category (desperate).


After a certain length, longer swords are just clumsier. Same principle for why you don't take a 20-foot pike to a duel against an eight foot spear.

Armour isn't going to help weapon durability, certainly.

Knaight
2014-06-25, 01:36 AM
Thinking too much about which weapon is superior is a third dangerous mentality. A committed attacker with an icepick is infinitely more dangerous than someone with a nuke they wouldn't dare use. Trusting in the strength of your weapon to save you is the same as saying a bigger army never lost to a smaller one.

That people can win fights with an inferior weapon does not somehow make a weapon not superior. A box cutter can be very dangerous, but between them and a chef's knife they're significantly less dangerous. Similarly, that chef knife is dangerous, but if one brings it to a machete fight they'll be at a disadvantage.

Mr. Mask
2014-06-25, 02:52 AM
Well, all weapons tend to have their use. You can hack someone very well with a machete from a few feet away. With the boxcutter and most knives, you need to get close, grab the fellow and unbalance him, then cut their stomach. You might chop your enemy down with the machete before they grab you, or you might manage to saw into them with the machete after they've grabbed you. While the boxcutter might perform better for wrestling, that does give the machete two ranges it can be used at, which is appreciable. That doesn't mean the boxcutter isn't a deadly weapon in skilled hands. Just as you might cut them down, they can still cut you down. The more important point of a boxcutter though, is that it's easy to conceal, which is a major point for criminals. If you're able to carry machetes about with you, that's also quite popular.

Incanur
2014-06-25, 07:24 AM
With the boxcutter and most knives, you need to get close, grab the fellow and unbalance him, then cut their stomach.

:smallconfused: This strikes me as a curious and suboptimal technique. While horrific, knife cuts aren't generally as likely (http://books.google.com/books?id=_l_9peGFRz0C&pg=PA26&dq=knife+wound+%2B+stab+%2B+slash&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2ryqU_GFMoatyASz7IH4Aw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=knife%20wound%20%2B%20stab%20%2B%20slash&f=false) to incapacitate or kill as knife thrusts.

Going back to the original question, while above-average strength might not matter with certain attacks, such as a dagger thrust to the throat, it would with others, like a dagger thrust to the chest that encounters a rib or a sword blow to the head (armored or unarmored). With sufficient strength, assuming it could translate into blade velocity, a dagger might cut like a sword, removing limbs and heads. (This perhaps gets into superhuman or peak-human territory.) Weak dagger cuts, on the other hand, would only inflict superficial injuries. These are just a few of the example of how strength can lead to increased weapon damage.

Mr. Mask
2014-06-25, 07:36 PM
Knife wounds are minor if you stand a few feet away and slap the guy with your knife, unless its weighted for that purpose. That's why you need to get close and grab them. Doesn't really matter how strong you are, slapping people with knives is just an ineffective method.

If you're attacking the wrong places, trying to stab through the rib instead of the gap between them, strength could help to inflict damage to the rib. A number of people have sword wounds on their skull which they survived, in archaeological digs. They probably had coifs, so strength and in particular heavier weapons would help with that.