PDA

View Full Version : Variable Weapon Damage: The Case Against



Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-28, 12:59 PM
This is a spin-off from a couple of other threads, which I thought I should put somewhere by itself instead of hijacking.

Every so often, you see a thread where somebody asks about why it's so hard to create an effective "fencer" type, or why it's so hard to actually kill a man with a dagger, and people immediately jump in pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to expect a tiny little knife/pointy little skewer/whatever to do do as much damage as a great big manly battle axe.

Now I'm not saying that variable weapon damage is a bad thing per se, or that it should be abolished entirely from D&D or from RPGs in general, but I do think it's worth challenging the received wisdom that for weapons Bigger == Better.

The basic argument in favour of big weapons doing more damage is that they hit harder. On the face of it, there's not much you can say against this. Harder hits = more damage. It's a no-brainer.

Except that of course it isn't that simple.

As a physics teacher how much voltage it takes to kill a man, and he is pretty much guaranteed to answer "it isn't the voltage that kills you, it's the current". The voltage is what pushes the electric current through your body, but ultimately it's the actual physical movement of electrons through your internal organs that does the - well - damage.

A cut from a two-handed sword could take your head off. A stab from a dagger could pierce your heart or a major artery and kill you in seconds. Both of these are fatal injuries, both of them are roughly equally possible with the weapons involved. Of course a cut from a dagger could *also* be a shallow slash that spills blood and little else, but then a hit from a two handed sword could be a hasty blow made with the pommel, or a thrust made at the half-sword.

Yes, ultimately, a two handed sword will do a better job of cutting up your body, but both weapons are basically equally likely to kill you.

The problem is further compounded by the fact that damage in D&D is an entirely abstract concept. 12HP might be "instant death" to a first level commoner, but it's barely a scratch to a high level fighter. Suddenly we get to the peculiar situation where all weapons are potentially deadly to low level characters, but some suddenly become incapable of inflicting serious injury on high level ones. You could argue that this is because it is easier to learn to defend yourself from a dagger than a greatsword, or that in some nebulous way a greatsword fighter has a broad advantage over a knife fighter, but again this strikes me as improbable, or at least unsupported. It carries the implication that the greatsword is, in all respects, a superior weapon to the dagger when it fairly obviously isn't. If it was, the modern armed forces would still be using greatswords in military operations. They don't. They do use knives, however, because they're really handy in close-quarters fighting.

Learnedguy
2008-02-28, 01:09 PM
Well, as hp is abstract, maybe it's try to show that daggers are worse than swords?

Because objectively speaking, the guy with the sword will win. Daggers fill a niche, but there is a solid reason to why soldiers rush into combat with their swords at the ready, not the daggers.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-28, 01:12 PM
Also, when we're talking about Large or Huge-sized demons and Gargantuan dragons, a greatsword is probably going to cause a lot more damage than a dagger.

Zincorium
2008-02-28, 01:13 PM
Well, you sir have stated the obvious with extreme skill. While I applaud you for it, I can't honestly say that I am educated by it.

At the same time, I do not really disagree with any of it.

I would like to say that the motivations behind each weapon (such as the reach advantage of the greatsword versus the speed advantage of the dagger) are simply not represented in 3.x. It's not built for realism, it's built for fighting giants, dragons, and demons. This has inherent disadvantages when you decide to use any real-world knowledge in analyzing it.

technophile
2008-02-28, 01:22 PM
You could argue that this is because it is easier to learn to defend yourself from a dagger than a greatsword, or that in some nebulous way a greatsword fighter has a broad advantage over a knife fighter, but again this strikes me as improbable, or at least unsupported. It carries the implication that the greatsword is, in all respects, a superior weapon to the dagger when it fairly obviously isn't.
Thus why the dagger was the primary weapon of roughly as many historical warriors as the sword. Except wait, it wasn't. The greatsword is superior to the dagger in all but a tiny number of circumstances:
1. Its greater reach allows you to keep the enemy farther away, limiting their ability to harm you (and maximizing the number of enemies you can reach with a minimum of movement).
2. Its heavier weight imparts more force to the blow, giving you greater potential of defeating or at least damaging your enemy's armor. Daggers are not actually much use against e.g. an armored knight, unless you have him down and not moving very much and can thus pick your targets with impunity.

The dagger is only useful if you haven't got room to swing a larger weapon, or as a last-ditch backup if your primary weapon is lost or broken.


If it was, the modern armed forces would still be using greatswords in military operations. They don't. They do use knives, however, because they're really handy in close-quarters fighting.
And they never use them for anything except last-ditch close-quarters fighting, and even that loses out to the real reason they carry knives: because they are great utility tools.

At short ranges, most soldiers will resort to a bayonet or handgun long before they draw a knife, for the same reasons a medieval soldier chose a longsword or crossbow. Knives are only used when you need absolute silence, or you can't bring your handgun/bayonet to bear because the enemy is literally on top of you.

Fiery Diamond
2008-02-28, 01:49 PM
I applaud the previous posters on their statements of why a greatsword is superior to a dagger.

That's not the point of this post.

I would contest this:


The problem is further compounded by the fact that damage in D&D is an entirely abstract concept. 12HP might be "instant death" to a first level commoner, but it's barely a scratch to a high level fighter. Suddenly we get to the peculiar situation where all weapons are potentially deadly to low level characters, but some suddenly become incapable of inflicting serious injury on high level ones. You could argue that this is because it is easier to learn to defend yourself from a dagger than a greatsword, or that in some nebulous way a greatsword fighter has a broad advantage over a knife fighter, but again this strikes me as improbable, or at least unsupported.
(my emphasis) on the grounds that what I emphasized is debatable. Something that people seem to forget is that D&D (and lots of the D20 stuff) is a FANTASY SETTING! Personally, though this could be debated by people, and everyone will have his/her own interpretation, I don't think that the first two bolded statements are true, and the last is irrelevant. I don't think that being high-level and having more hit points means you can "defend yourself" more easily - it means you have more stamina. Remember, this isn't realistic - it's a fantasy setting. Anyone here watch anime? You know how some characters, the ordinary humans that don't do much, can die or be on the brink of death from only a blow or two (or a slash or two)? Those are commoners with low hit points. You know how main characters can be slashed across the chest, the face, the legs, the arms, and be spitting up blood and still keep fighting? That's a character with a lot of hit points. 1 hp at a low level isn't more than it is at a high level - you can just take many more life-threatening attacks at high levels (completely unrealistically, but this is a FANTASY SETTING, remember).
There. I've finished my diatribe. Ok, continue.

-Fiery Diamond

Burley
2008-02-28, 01:57 PM
I'd like to point out where your own logic and the weapon statistics actually coincide with one another so that everything makes sence.
Let us take two weapons: The Greatsword and The Rapier. One is a big two handed blade, the other is a pointy steel stick.
You already said that the big one can lob off heads and limbs, while a small one (dagger) can sever a major artery or puncture the heart. Well, that is accounted for. It's called a Critical Hit.
Big weapons do a lot of damage, yeah. But, the smaller, lighter weapon (which do the vessel slicing and the heart puncturing) have a much higher critical threat range.
(all feats aside, on the same character using the same statistics)

So, yeah. Small weapons have a chance of taking things down. It's accounted for in those 18-20 x2 things, that you seem to have forgotten about. Everybody is worried about the d4, d6, d8, d12 stuff. Start paying attention to the d20, or the others are useless.

ColdBrew
2008-02-28, 01:59 PM
I could point out the historical and physical data that contradict pretty much everything you've said, or I could just say you're wrong and leave it at that. You have failed to provide sufficient evidence in support of your points, and until you do, they warrant no further interest.

Lord Tataraus
2008-02-28, 02:01 PM
This is a spin-off from a couple of other threads, which I thought I should put somewhere by itself instead of hijacking.

Every so often, you see a thread where somebody asks about why it's so hard to create an effective "fencer" type, or why it's so hard to actually kill a man with a dagger, and people immediately jump in pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to expect a tiny little knife/pointy little skewer/whatever to do do as much damage as a great big manly battle axe.
First off, I fencer relies a a completely different style of combat than a battle-axe-wielder. A fencer (in a combat situation) is trained to parry and wait for an opening to make a single, killing or crippling blow while the battle-axe is used to bash and slash until the opponent dies/crumples under the number of wounds. The fencer style is just plain not supported by the D20 combat system, not the weapon damage. As for the dagger, it is hard to kill a man with a dagger compared to the other options. You need to get in close and strike a vital area while with a sword or axe you can be less precise because of the wound area.


Now I'm not saying that variable weapon damage is a bad thing per se, or that it should be abolished entirely from D&D or from RPGs in general, but I do think it's worth challenging the received wisdom that for weapons Bigger == Better.

The basic argument in favour of big weapons doing more damage is that they hit harder. On the face of it, there's not much you can say against this. Harder hits = more damage. It's a no-brainer.

Except that of course it isn't that simple.

As a physics teacher how much voltage it takes to kill a man, and he is pretty much guaranteed to answer "it isn't the voltage that kills you, it's the current". The voltage is what pushes the electric current through your body, but ultimately it's the actual physical movement of electrons through your internal organs that does the - well - damage.
This is where you point out that finesse weapons kill by well placed strikes and the passing wounds are frivolous, as I said with the fencer, D20 combat just doesn't support that style. However a bigger weapon deals more damage because it has a wide damage area. A sabre makes a small scratch or pin prick that is lethal only with a precise hit, where as a broadsword or battle axe has a large blade that can cut off a limb or make a huge gash that causes death through blood loss. A sabre doesn't rely on damage, but instant death via vital points in one's anatomy.


A cut from a two-handed sword could take your head off. A stab from a dagger could pierce your heart or a major artery and kill you in seconds. Both of these are fatal injuries, both of them are roughly equally possible with the weapons involved. Of course a cut from a dagger could *also* be a shallow slash that spills blood and little else, but then a hit from a two handed sword could be a hasty blow made with the pommel, or a thrust made at the half-sword.

Yes, ultimately, a two handed sword will do a better job of cutting up your body, but both weapons are basically equally likely to kill you.
No. Just plain no. This is a false statement. A two-handed sword requires less precision to chop off a limb then a dagger has of piercing an artery or the heart. Firstly, there is the matter of distance, then the matter of the target area, and then the matter of your blade size. The larger each of those are the easier the desired outcome. Also, who is your opponent? A Medieval-style soldier? Well, now you have the matter of armor, a dagger can't pierce armor very easily, that's why most medieval weapons were either long-piercing weapons (pikes, spears, swords) or large bludgeoning weapons (greatswords, maces, axes) a slashing weapon was a bludgeoning weapon that had a cutting edge that could be used if the opponent's armor was detached somehow.


The problem is further compounded by the fact that damage in D&D is an entirely abstract concept. 12HP might be "instant death" to a first level commoner, but it's barely a scratch to a high level fighter. Suddenly we get to the peculiar situation where all weapons are potentially deadly to low level characters, but some suddenly become incapable of inflicting serious injury on high level ones. You could argue that this is because it is easier to learn to defend yourself from a dagger than a greatsword, or that in some nebulous way a greatsword fighter has a broad advantage over a knife fighter, but again this strikes me as improbable, or at least unsupported. It carries the implication that the greatsword is, in all respects, a superior weapon to the dagger when it fairly obviously isn't. If it was, the modern armed forces would still be using greatswords in military operations. They don't. They do use knives, however, because they're really handy in close-quarters fighting.
The HP system is based on vitality in terms of endurance and on morale. It assumes you are not taking cuts and getting pierced, but are rather getting bruised and weary from fighting and losing morale because you are an inferior warrior. As for modern soldiers using knives/daggers? They use them as survival tools, not weapons. For close combat melee, they use the butt of a gun or a bayonet which is effectively a pike, bludgeoning and piercing. Few civilizations used slashing weapons. The only substantial armies that used slashing weapons were those in the middle east and India because most armors were cloth and could be cut easily. That's why they has trouble invading the metal-clad warriors of Europe. And for the record, the katana is a piercing weapon, designed like the short swords of Europe to pierce in the joints in armor.

Now, for the question of the randomness of weapon damage, it is not to display physical damage, so I don't mind. However, I prefer scaling damage that ignores the base weapon damage and indicates training, rather than the original effectiveness of the weapon.

Lapak
2008-02-28, 02:02 PM
Chiming in with the 'no, a dagger is not equivalent to a greatsword in damage potential' crowd here. As has been noted, we don't use knives for combat now. And they didn't by preference back when hand-to-hand combat was the only option, either. Not just for reasons of reach, either!

Modern stab wound victims do sometimes die from a single knife thrust. Sometimes a dagger-user does get that lucky/is that skillful, and pierces the heart or severs a major artery. However, many/most stab victims either survive or perish from multiple, repeated stab wounds and cuts. Bodies can take a lot of punishment, especially in the short term: while you might bleed out from a lot of shallow wounds, or have one of those shallow wounds happen to sever a major blood vessel, you're far more likely to be mortally wounded when hit with a bigger, heavier weapon.

People don't survive axe blows as readily as knife wounds, because they hit harder (due to greater mass), cause more direct damage (because of larger surface area), cause more indirect damage (bruising and breakage around the actual wound due to the force of the hit), and generally have greater penetration. The greater mass helps them break through barriers that would turn a dagger - a rib might stop a knife thrust, but an axe is going to crunch right through it and keep going.

All in all: yes. Bigger melee weapons are more dangerous, and do more damage to human bodies. The only reason that they're not still used today is because guns are more effective still.

EDIT: Clearly I came in late on this. That'll teach me to open several tabs and respond to a thread after reading three others.

Fhaolan
2008-02-28, 02:09 PM
Of course, it's difficult to map RL effectiveness to D&D, because HP and AC are both too vague of concepts. If HP damage is defined not only as actual physical damage, then weapons will do more or less damage not only because of how hard they hit and how far they penetrate, but their psycological impact and effect on fatigue.

And add in that many D&D weapons are... not what they are in RL. A RL rapier is only fractionally different from a cut-and-thrust, which is only fractionally different from an arming sword (which is what D&D defines as a 'longsword'). For some reason D&D rapiers are more like sport epees, which may have evolved from rapiers but have no resemblance to actual combat rapiers.

I'm not saying you're wrong, because I agree with you that the weapon damages in D&D are inaccurate, but that revisiting weapon damage in an effective way entails revisiting HP, AC, and many of the other base D&D concepts.

Yakk
2008-02-28, 02:10 PM
Or, to be clear:
The dagger is not just as likely to kill someone as a great sword.

You swing a great sword at someone, a large amount of stuff gets cut. If you hit a bone, the bone breaks. Shocks continue through the body.

The dagger, meanwhile, hits less stuff. Less stuff gets cut. Bones deflect your blade. The shock to the rest of your body is small.

...

Game wise, large blatantly violent weapons should, by default, be deadlier. Otherwise who would bother with a 10 lbs sharp metal stick, when a 1/2 lb sharp metal stick would do the job?

fendrin
2008-02-28, 02:20 PM
Thus why the dagger was the primary weapon of roughly as many historical warriors as the sword. Except wait, it wasn't. The greatsword is superior to the dagger in all but a tiny number of circumstances:
1. Its greater reach allows you to keep the enemy farther away, limiting their ability to harm you (and maximizing the number of enemies you can reach with a minimum of movement).
2. Its heavier weight imparts more force to the blow, giving you greater potential of defeating or at least damaging your enemy's armor. Daggers are not actually much use against e.g. an armored knight, unless you have him down and not moving very much and can thus pick your targets with impunity.

The dagger is only useful if you haven't got room to swing a larger weapon, or as a last-ditch backup if your primary weapon is lost or broken.


And they never use them for anything except last-ditch close-quarters fighting, and even that loses out to the real reason they carry knives: because they are great utility tools.

At short ranges, most soldiers will resort to a bayonet or handgun long before they draw a knife, for the same reasons a medieval soldier chose a longsword or crossbow. Knives are only used when you need absolute silence, or you can't bring your handgun/bayonet to bear because the enemy is literally on top of you.

Erm, no.

Try to count how many variations on the dagger were used, historically, in combat. Now compare that to the greatswords. Not to many of the latter and an unimaginable variety of the former.

There are plenty of daggers designed for use against armored opponents. For example, the stilletto was designed to be able to puncture some armors, and slip through the cracks of others.

Physics explains one reason. Yes, mass factors in to the force of the blow [Force = Mass * Acceleration], but equally or more important is a small striking area [Force / Area]. That's why the preferred medieval weapon against a heavily armored knight was a warhammer. Good mass and a small striking area (historical warhammers, not fantasy ones). Blunt, so that instead of piercing the armor and getting stuck, it would dent the armor, essentially crushing the armor in to the knight's body, and lockin gjoints all at the same time. A good warhammer hit could crack a helm and kill a knight in one blow, but a sword blow would be more likely to be deflected (though the impact might stun the knight, giving an advantage).
besides, heavy armor is a historical fallacy. It was not used for very long before it was rendered obsolete by guns and better tactics. Before that, there were many large gaps in armor that were typically taken dvantage of, which required a maneuverable blade: typically a one handed sword or a large dagger.

EDIT: as someone else pointed out, slow posting on these threads is brutal.
For the record, I have no problem with greatswords doing more damage in D&D than daggers, but PLEASE don't bring physics and history into it. The fact of the matter is that D&D is trying to make a playable, balanced weapon system that allows for a variety of fantasy archetypes to be replicated.

Note that I said, fantasy archetypes, not historical archetypes.

ColdBrew
2008-02-28, 02:53 PM
Well, I use a greatsword all the time, and I routinely kill guys with daggers without taking a scratch. It's only other greatsword-wielding foes that give me any challenge. :smallamused:

There, I've solved the debate once and for all with my first-hand knowledge of medieval warfare.

Draz74
2008-02-28, 03:05 PM
I use a Vitality and Wound Points (VP/WP) system, and I've considered making all weapons do the same amount of VP damage, while still giving them variations on WP damage. Or the other way around.

Any feedback or suggestions on that idea?

Starbuck_II
2008-02-28, 03:12 PM
As a physics teacher how much voltage it takes to kill a man, and he is pretty much guaranteed to answer "it isn't the voltage that kills you, it's the current". The voltage is what pushes the electric current through your body, but ultimately it's the actual physical movement of electrons through your internal organs that does the - well - damage.


Actually, it is not internal organs. Which is why you should always keep one hand behind your back when messing with a circuit: as long as it does'nt travel through your heart, you won't die.

Or create a Faraday cage for your protection: either way.

sikyon
2008-02-28, 03:31 PM
As a physics teacher how much voltage it takes to kill a man, and he is pretty much guaranteed to answer "it isn't the voltage that kills you, it's the current". The voltage is what pushes the electric current through your body, but ultimately it's the actual physical movement of electrons through your internal organs that does the - well - damage.


The physics teacher should be fired. Voltage kills you, not current. Even a very small amount of current can kill you if it runs through your heart. It never does, however, because the resistance of your body is such that it simply prevents that small amount of current from running.

Voltage = Current * Resistance.

Voltage causes electricity. Make no mistake. Voltage differences are potential electrical energy. Your bodily resistance is high enough that a small amount of voltage will only induce a small amount of current in your body, a tiny amount. The more voltage there is, the higher the current is.

Lesson: Current comes from Voltage.


It carries the implication that the greatsword is, in all respects, a superior weapon to the dagger when it fairly obviously isn't. If it was, the modern armed forces would still be using greatswords in military operations. They don't. They do use knives, however, because they're really handy in close-quarters fighting.

Modern forces don't carry greatswords around because greatswords are not useful in grapples (repersented in D&D), greatswords have encumberance (heavy weight, also in D&D though the effect is much less than real life). Knives are much eaisier to draw as well, being light (and therefore backup) weapons. If you actually ran out of ammo, you'd most definatly want a greatsword over a combat knife to protect yourself. But if your opponent jumps on and grapples you, a combat knife will be much more useful. Finally knives are also more useful in regular chores soilders do, like cutting rope. (D&D doesn't really deal with chores).


Finally, stop thinking of HP in D&D as having physical meaning, even being able to block better. It's purely abstract, and best left that way.

Matthew
2008-02-28, 04:00 PM
No. Just plain no. This is a false statement. A two-handed sword requires less precision to chop off a limb then a dagger has of piercing an artery or the heart. Firstly, there is the matter of distance, then the matter of the target area, and then the matter of your blade size. The larger each of those are the easier the desired outcome. Also, who is your opponent? A Medieval-style soldier? Well, now you have the matter of armor, a dagger can't pierce armor very easily, that's why most medieval weapons were either long-piercing weapons (pikes, spears, swords) or large bludgeoning weapons (greatswords, maces, axes) a slashing weapon was a bludgeoning weapon that had a cutting edge that could be used if the opponent's armor was detached somehow.

This strikes me as extremely spurious. A Dagger has about as much chance of going through Body Armour as a Long Sword or Spear. Why are you dividing Medieval weaponry into 'Piercing' and 'Bludgeoning' categories? What's your source for these statements?



As for modern soldiers using knives/daggers? They use them as survival tools, not weapons. For close combat melee, they use the butt of a gun or a bayonet which is effectively a pike, bludgeoning and piercing.

Source?



Few civilizations used slashing weapons. The only substantial armies that used slashing weapons were those in the middle east and India because most armors were cloth and could be cut easily. That's why they has trouble invading the metal-clad warriors of Europe. And for the record, the katana is a piercing weapon, designed like the short swords of Europe to pierce in the joints in armor.

Source?

fendrin
2008-02-28, 04:15 PM
Oy, people give the electricity debate a rest!
Dan is right, though that is the stock response from a physics teacher (I've heard it often enough).

Here's the thing about Voltage and Amperage (ie current):
They are two sides of the same coin.

Voltage: the difference in electrons between two points
Amperage: the flow of electrons between two points
Resistance: How difficult it is for electrons to flow across a given point

As sikyon pointed out, V=AR (often written V=IR or I= V/R)

What this means is that given a fixed resistance, Increasing voltage increases amperage, and vice versa.

So which kills? BOTH!

ColdBrew
2008-02-28, 04:17 PM
This strikes me as extremely spurious
Source?


A Dagger has about as much chance of going through Body Armour as a Long Sword or Spear.
Source?

sikyon
2008-02-28, 04:19 PM
Source?


Source?

Discovery channel, I've seen it there. Swords infact do not cut through armor, but bludgeon the person inside. Daggers poke through joints. Spears have the momentum to peirce lighter armor.

Solders do infact use knives as tools. I used to be in cadets, have a few friends in the army. You never end up using knives as weapons in real combat. You use your gun.


I've never seen a source for that last one. I say that's just logic, but I find it abit far fetched. Eastern armor wasn't made of metal, but it was reportedly still very strong.

sikyon
2008-02-28, 04:23 PM
So which kills? BOTH!

Actually, if you were to touch one wire with 2000 Amps running through it but as the result of only a few volts difference, you wouldn't be hurt.

If you touched a wire with a few thousand volts and only a few Amps running through it, you'd be a goner.

ColdBrew
2008-02-28, 04:27 PM
Actually, if you were to touch one wire with 2000 Amps running through it but as the result of only a few volts difference, you wouldn't be hurt.

If you touched a wire with a few thousand volts and only a few Amps running through it, you'd be a goner.
The difference between those two cases is the resistance of the wire, but your body's resistance is what's important to determining how much current flows through your heart.

Lord Tataraus
2008-02-28, 04:28 PM
This strikes me as extremely spurious. A Dagger has about as much chance of going through Body Armour as a Long Sword or Spear. Why are you dividing Medieval weaponry into 'Piercing' and 'Bludgeoning' categories? What's your source for these statements?
True, a dagger has as much chance to pierce body armor as most other weapons in theory. However, in a combat situation you are more likely to have the opportunity to do so with a sword or spear because of reach and other factors. As for dividing medieval weaponry into piercing and bludgeoning categories, firstly, I'm using D&D terms since we are talking about D&D. Secondly, due to the nature of armor and its interaction with weapons, a weapon made to cut is very ineffective. The greatsword in reality was what would be termed a bludgeoning weapon in D&D. It was used to bludgeon an opponent and the blade helped to make a smaller surface area. You were not going to cut through a helmet with the blade but you could still bash the heck out of the guy wearing it.

On the modern soldiers, bit, I admit I don't know as much about that, but I am sure the knife is mostly a utility tool, though there are cases were it would be used as a weapon. I think bayonets are mostly gone from the battlefield, at least in the US military, though they were used in both World Wars, but that's almost ancient history now.

As for few armies using slashing weapons, again I mean cutting as in a light curved blade not a straight blade of a broadsword that makes an effective bludgeon. Most of these curved blades are found in areas where armies used cloth or leather armors as opposed to metal armors. A curved blade is inefficient against metal armor because it relies on slicing an opponent to damage, not bruising and shocking like straight blades.

Unfortunately, I cant quote once source in particular, I draw from a number of articles I've read through the years on a variety of topics and I have no idea if I could find them again. I'm not saying I know everything about medieval combat and I'm sure there is a lot I don't know and I might be wrong on some points. However, I know enough that I think I can confidently say what I have.

sikyon
2008-02-28, 04:34 PM
The difference between those two cases is the resistance of the wire, but your body's resistance is what's important to determining how much current flows through your heart.

Exactly, since your body's resistance is fixed (more or less) all that really matters is the voltage of the source you are touching. Therefore voltage kills you, not current.


I think bayonets are mostly gone from the battlefield, at least in the US military, though they were used in both World Wars, but that's almost ancient history now.

I believe bayonets are still used in some militaries. I know that my friend in the canadian forces has to practice affixing bayonets at least, though I'm pretty sure that's just for ceremony.

Honestly, the advent of automatic rifles rendered many of the weaknesses of rifles in close quarters moot.

Lord Tataraus
2008-02-28, 04:34 PM
I've never seen a source for that last one. I say that's just logic, but I find it abit far fetched. Eastern armor wasn't made of metal, but it was reportedly still very strong.

Eastern armor was made of woven cloth and leathers. There were very strong, but a blade built for cutting could slice through easier and wouldn't get caught as easily as with a wooden shield. Thus the weapons are built to work against the armor, so cutting weapons were developed and favored. Actually, a cutting weapon is more effective than a bludgeoning weapon because it can cause gashes that harbor infection if the victim doesn't die from blood loss. And since the armors were not especially resistant towards cutting weapons, they worked well.

ColdBrew
2008-02-28, 04:35 PM
Ah, the old "medieval swords were bashing weapons" theory rears its head again.

I refer to you the following:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html


It very quickly becomes clear they were intended for large fighting men to deliver not only powerful slashing blows but great stabbing attacks as well as pole-weapon-like techniques.

ColdBrew
2008-02-28, 04:36 PM
Exactly, since your body's resistance is fixed (more or less) all that really matters is the voltage of the source you are touching. Therefore voltage kills you, not current.

Well, a sufficiently resistant wire may as well be an insulator, but that's nitpicking. :smallwink:

sikyon
2008-02-28, 04:38 PM
Actually, a cutting weapon is more effective than a bludgeoning weapon because it can cause gashes that harbor infection if the victim doesn't die from blood loss. And since the armors were not especially resistant towards cutting weapons, they worked well.

Actually against armored knights bludgeoning weapons were more effective, as many times the force of hammers on the armor would trap a knight inside his armor, which couldn't be removed, dooming him.

Telonius
2008-02-28, 04:39 PM
The problem is further compounded by the fact that damage in D&D is an entirely abstract concept. 12HP might be "instant death" to a first level commoner, but it's barely a scratch to a high level fighter. Suddenly we get to the peculiar situation where all weapons are potentially deadly to low level characters, but some suddenly become incapable of inflicting serious injury on high level ones.

Not really. The weapon is perfectly capable of killing high level characters. The hand wielding it might not be. This gets into one of the trickiest things about HP. Yes, HP is an abstraction. But higher HP isn't really a measure of toughness. It's a measure of skill. Combined with AC, it represents skill in getting out of the way of attacks. This is completely counter-intuitive, I know, but it makes sense.

For example, suppose a Commoner 1 gets a lucky shot in, rolls a 20 and hits a Fighter 20 with a Greatsword for 18 damage. What would that look like on the Fighter? Probably a fairly decent cut on the arm. It's only that bad because the Fighter is very skilled. He moved out of the way, parried, or did something else so that the damage was minimized. The Fighter is one of the most renowned warriors in the realm. The commoner is some schmoe who barely knows "pointy end away from self." The only reason he got through the armor in the first place was a lucky shot. The only way he could reliably kill the fighter would be sneaking up behind him when he wasn't looking and Coup de Grace'ing him (which is possible given the D&D rules). Regular combat would just be a slaughter, as you would expect in real-life combat.

Now, if the Fighter hit the Commoner for 12 damage, it would probably look something like, the body is down there, and the head is across the room somewhere. That's because the Fighter is much more skilled at getting through armor than the commoner is (higher BAB). He's a highly-skilled warrior. The only way he misses is if some major mishap occurs (rolls a 1). The Commoner is utterly unskilled at defending himself (low HP). Even leaving aside feats like Power Attack, you would expect an evisceration with every blow. So, end result, the commoner gets blood all over the fighter's shoes.

As the fighter is fighting things that have higher and higher HP totals, his sword is just as deadly. But it's less able to kill the foes. Not because the sword becomes not as sharp - but because his foes become harder to hit (i.e. higher in level and HP).

Ascension
2008-02-28, 04:40 PM
I'd say that since to do damage with a dagger you target a relatively small area (chinks in armor, vital organs, gaps between ribs, etc.) that would all be precision damage, i.e. critical hit, sneak attack, skirmish, sudden strike, etc. damage, not the actual weapon damage. With a few exceptions, the classes that are more likely to use daggers get precision damage bonuses. I say it makes sense, since when you're facing an opponent that's immune to precision damage (let's just say a skeleton, for the sake of the argument), a dagger really isn't going to do much. The dagger-wielder says, "Oh, look, it's a skeleton! I slip my dagger between its ribs to stab at its vitals... that aren't there."

This means that when most player races fight most other player races, the dagger wielders can, through their precision damage bonuses, easily do as much or more damage than the guys with the big greatswords. When you're fighting undead, on the other hand, the blunt stopping force of swinging around a large object is going to do a lot more than poking organs they don't need anymore.

Base weapon damage is brute-force damage. If we equalize weapon damage, then people with precision damage abilities are going to start putting obscenely high offensive numbers on the board, since they'll have the brute force damage dice and the precision damage dice. The current system is needed for balance.

Granted, I know that with a feat or with multiclassing you can sneak attack with greatswords, so my logic isn't completely valid, but I think the game designers' intent was probably something along my line of thinking.

BRC
2008-02-28, 04:43 PM
The problem is that the DnD combat system is not designed very well. The skill with which you hit somthing has no correspondance to how much damage you do.

Let's take a situation, lets say there are two soliders wielding identical equipment and with Identical ability scores. However, one of them is a grizzled vetern (5th level warrior) and the other is a rookie (1st level warrior). They are fighting identical foes that have low AC. Now, rationally the vetern should be more effective in this situation, being a more experienced fighter he is able to dish out more punishment. However, with DnD rules, They will be about equal, because with the exception of Crits, in DnD you don't deal more damage for a more accurate attack. Also, you can use a greatsword just as fast as you can use a dagger.

The reason a Dagger is a good weapon is because it's light and accurate. With a Greatsword you cain aim at a general area on somebody, but it's not a precision weapon. Also, once you hit you need to shift alot of metal before you can strike again. This means that while when you hit somebody you will likely hit them very hard, it will be tough to hit them and when you do, or miss, it will take awhile before you can attack again. Whereas a Dagger you can gut somebody and attack again very quickly. If your good at using a dagger, you can proably take out a vital organ with it, crippling somebody in one blow.

However, Since in DnD Accuracy has no impact on damage (even with Crossbows which, considering their mechanical nature, should strike with very little difference in force every time), and since people go straight from 100% ready to Fight to Death's Door with nothing in between a Dagger is preety much useless. Heck, according to DnD slitting somebodies throat with a knife while they are asleep and tied up only deals 8 damage.

I wouldn't call it perfect, but Shadowrun had a somewhat better system for combat. Weapons had a Base damage that reffered to how hard it hit (For a melee weapon this was modified by your strength), after that it was all about accuracy. Also, as you took damage you became worse and worse at doing things. You would be on the ground and incapacitated before you were at death's door.

Saph
2008-02-28, 04:44 PM
I think this has been answered pretty well already. To summarise:

Bigger, heavier, nastier weapons do more damage in D&D because they do more damage in real life.

A stab from a dagger is much less dangerous than a strike from a two-handed weapon, for obvious reasons. Daggers are popular, but they're not popular because they're powerful. They're popular because they're small, light, portable, concealable, and unlikely to attract attention. It's the same reason people use handguns over rifles.

- Saph

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-28, 04:44 PM
Modern Military uses knives as a last-ditch, "Oh **" sort of a deal. They usually figure on dying in that sort of situation no matter what, but the knife works well as a tool and a bayonet so they carry it around. Bayonets are fixed whenever they have time and know they are going into melee combat because of the increased reach. They don't use the knives as weapons often(or at all, if they can help it), because it gives you the same effective range as your opponent, which means they are in range of you.

As for source, 3 separate career military officers, all discharged honorably, and all with more than 10 years of service primarily in combat zones, share the same opinion of the knife. Namely, it'll save your life as long as you never use it in combat.

Ascension
2008-02-28, 04:59 PM
However, Since in DnD Accuracy has no impact on damage
...
Heck, according to DnD slitting somebodies throat with a knife while they are asleep and tied up only deals 8 damage.

Again, accuracy does have an effect on damage in D&D, represented by precision damage. It just doesn't work against undead and oozes and the like, because frankly, precision won't help you one bit against those sorts of things. It can't be a function of the attack roll because then you'd get bonuses to damage for precisely hitting things that are crit-immune.

And as for slitting someone's throat while they're asleep and tied up, mechanically that'd be an assassin's death attack or a high level sneak attack. Is it fair that not every class gets bonuses for slitting a man's throat? Probably not, but then, think about the mentality it takes to slit someone's throat... a rogue or assassin is much more likely to do it than, say, a paladin.

Accuracy isn't absent from D&D, it's just a class feature in D&D... and for good reason, I think. Otherwise you'd have people in heavy armor knife-fighting with each other... which really doesn't fit the setting.

If you want to, you could house-rule a death-attack equivalent for use in coup de gras-ing.

Doomsy
2008-02-28, 05:05 PM
No system represents combat that well, or ever will, from modern gun-based warfare to medieval-fantasy melee. It is insanely complex and way too hard to represent even close to realistically without horribly slowing down the game and making combat a chore.

Bigger weapons did do more damage, yes, but the fact is that a system that does not really allow you to 'aim' your hits is going to favor them way over something like a dagger that is best used for slitting throats or quick, nasty attacks like a prison shanking. You go for vital points with a small weapon. In a system that doesn't allow that, they're not nearly as useful.

So given how D&D works, yeah, the big ones are always going to be better just because of more flat-out damage and no system that allows you to say, suddenly jam a stiletto into the big bads kidneys from behind and do mortal damage. Even with what Ascension said above - bigger is still better because you'd want to use a LONGSWORD to sneak attack or precision attack more than a dagger - because the damage die is bigger. It's just how the game works. It's a combination of how armor, HP damage, and attacking just functions. And the fact that EVERYONE in D&D always walks around in their full armor.
And we really should try to keep guns out of this one - if anything, they're actually LESS realistically portrayed than any other weapons in gaming.

BRC
2008-02-28, 05:10 PM
Again, accuracy does have an effect on damage in D&D, represented by precision damage. It just doesn't work against undead and oozes and the like, because frankly, precision won't help you one bit against those sorts of things. It can't be a function of the attack roll because then you'd get bonuses to damage for precisely hitting things that are crit-immune.

And as for slitting someone's throat while they're asleep and tied up, mechanically that'd be an assassin's death attack or a high level sneak attack. Is it fair that not every class gets bonuses for slitting a man's throat? Probably not, but then, think about the mentality it takes to slit someone's throat... a rogue or assassin is much more likely to do it than, say, a paladin.

Accuracy isn't absent from D&D, it's just a class feature in D&D... and for good reason, I think. Otherwise you'd have people in heavy armor knife-fighting with each other... which really doesn't fit the setting.

If you want to, you could house-rule a death-attack equivalent for use in coup de gras-ing.
Precision Damage like Sneak Attack right? Well, ignoring the fact that it means a high-level fighter (not counting feats) is just better at hitting the general area of somebody, not actually hitting them where it counts. Sneak Attack isn't what I really call precision damage. It is in a way, except that it only works when your enemy is flat footed. That makes sense right, "Hey, my enemy isn't trying to dodge around anymore because my fighter buddy is hitting him from the other side, I can hit him in a vital spot." That makes perfect sense, Except that the enemy being flat footed should make it easier to hit something in a vital spot (Excluding things like undead that don't have vital spots), Not Possible to hit something in a vital spot. Ypuve got a rogue whose skill is legendary, he can find a chink in the armor of a troll in adamite full plate. And yet, he can't go for a vital organ AT ALL unless the opponent is flat footed. Sure it should be alot easier, but I don't think it should be the only time you can do that.

ColdBrew
2008-02-28, 05:15 PM
Ypuve got a rogue whose skill is legendary, he can find a chink in the armor of a troll in adamite full plate. And yet, he can't go for a vital organ AT ALL while the opponent is able to bring his full attention to bear on defending himself

That's really the key here. You can't place the pointy stick exactly where you want it because he won't let you. Besides, a level 20 rogue should have plenty of ways to enable sneak attack, especially if you draw from non-core sources.

Dancing_Zephyr
2008-02-28, 05:15 PM
Three things.
Greatsword is easier to kill someone with than a dagger.

The current of electrons through tissue kills. Voltage, current are both side of a triangle, the third side being resistance. One could say that its the lack of resistance that kills. ITS THE SAME THING!

Third to whomever said it, katanas are cutting weapons. Watch a katana, gata? (not sure if that applies, but whatever the equivalent is.). It has a very sharp edge and was meant as a cutting weapon. You can stab with it, but a devoted piercing weapon it isn't.

*Edit*
One more thing. Shovels make better had to hand combat weapons than knives do.
*/Edit*

Skjaldbakka
2008-02-28, 05:18 PM
Since no-one has posted the obvious counter to this point, I will.

At high level, variable weapon damage is a joke. 1d4 vs. 1d12 is a difference of 4 damage, on average. Compared to the +X damage you'll be dealing if you are in any way competent with a weapon at high level, the difference is insignificant. At high level, the only functional difference between greataxe and dagger is the crit stats, and whether or not you can power attack with it.



Sneak Attack isn't what I really call precision damage.

Funny how you're wrong there. At least from the perspective of game mechanics, sneak attack is, in fact, precision based damage, whether you want to call it that or not.

BRC
2008-02-28, 05:22 PM
That's really the key here. You can't place the pointy stick exactly where you want it because he won't let you. Besides, a level 20 rogue should have plenty of ways to enable sneak attack, especially if you draw from non-core sources.
Like most of the Combat system, it sound's right at the beginning, but I don't really like how no matter how skilled a rouge gets, the clumsiest idiot who is able to focus on defending himself can stop himself from getting hit in a vital area. Though there are lots of ways to hit somebody with a sneak attack without ambushing or flanking them, I find it somewhat wierd that they can't just do it by being really really skilled.
Then again, the system works even if it dosn't make that much sense.

Matthew
2008-02-28, 05:26 PM
Discovery channel, I've seen it there. Swords infact do not cut through armor, but bludgeon the person inside. Daggers poke through joints. Spears have the momentum to peirce lighter armor.

I wouldn't trust jack the DC said. That said, it's true that any blow will inflict some degree of impact damage, but the point was really that it is worth discerning between the sorts of blows delivered by Maces and blades.



Solders do infact use knives as tools. I used to be in cadets, have a few friends in the army. You never end up using knives as weapons in real combat. You use your gun.

Sure they do. The question was whether they were issued for that purpose.



I've never seen a source for that last one. I say that's just logic, but I find it abit far fetched. Eastern armor wasn't made of metal, but it was reportedly still very strong.

A katana can be used to cut or thrust. It's designed to do both (like virtually all swords), but the emphasis is usually on it's cutting power.



True, a dagger has as much chance to pierce body armor as most other weapons in theory. However, in a combat situation you are more likely to have the opportunity to do so with a sword or spear because of reach and other factors.

Absolutely, a Dagger is a weapon for when things have gone wrong. If I were looking to rationalise variable weapon damage, I would go with 'reach' as an explanation as well.



As for dividing medieval weaponry into piercing and bludgeoning categories, firstly, I'm using D&D terms since we are talking about D&D.

Well, I would suggest that the 'slashing' category isn't the same as 'cutting', if you see what I mean. An Axe and a Mace will interact with body armour and flesh very differently from one another. D&D already differentiates them and with good reason.



Secondly, due to the nature of armor and its interaction with weapons, a weapon made to cut is very ineffective. The greatsword in reality was what would be termed a bludgeoning weapon in D&D. It was used to bludgeon an opponent and the blade helped to make a smaller surface area. You were not going to cut through a helmet with the blade but you could still bash the heck out of the guy wearing it.

You're probably primarily thinking of a 'full harness' here. A 'cut' will indeed do very little to such armour, but again an Axe and a Mace will affect it quite differently. On the other hand, the frequency of such armour on the battlefield is up for debate. At Agincourt, for instance, even if all of the Men at Arms were in full harness, about 80% of the English Army is thought to have been made up of Archers who almost certainly couldn't have afforded such gear. The French might have had a lot more, of course.



On the modern soldiers, bit, I admit I don't know as much about that, but I am sure the knife is mostly a utility tool, though there are cases were it would be used as a weapon. I think bayonets are mostly gone from the battlefield, at least in the US military, though they were used in both World Wars, but that's almost ancient history now.

As far as I understand it, Combat Knives don't see a lot of action because of the nature of modern warfare. However, modern Soldiers are trained in their use and issued them for combat, not to open their lunches with (even if that is what they end up being used for). Ideally, they'll never have to use them, but their primary functon is indeed for close quarters combat.



As for few armies using slashing weapons, again I mean cutting as in a light curved blade not a straight blade of a broadsword that makes an effective bludgeon. Most of these curved blades are found in areas where armies used cloth or leather armors as opposed to metal armors. A curved blade is inefficient against metal armor because it relies on slicing an opponent to damage, not bruising and shocking like straight blades.

Curved swords were reasonably common weapons in the medieval period, you can see them on manuscript illustrations, though they are less evident than the cruciform sword. Of course, the Chinese common soldier made heavy use of the curved Dao over the straight bladed Jian, even though the frequency of body armour varied considerably. Interestingly, though, almost all medieval literature (fictional and historical) describes the blows given by a sword as slashing or cutting the opponent. This is in direct contrast to Vegetius, who complains that the soldiers of his time (c. 500 AD, I think) are not utilising the thrust with their swords, which he considers more deadly, but the cut. There are a couple of interesting ARMA articles on the subject of the efficiancy of the thrust over the cut, which you can read here: The Myth of Cutting versus Thrusting Swords (http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html), What makes an Effective Sword Cut? (http://www.thearma.org/essays/howacutworks.htm) and Talhoffer Long Sword: Armoured and Unarmoured (http://www.thearma.org/essays/Talhoffer/HT-Web.htm)

What it basically comes down to is that a Sword is a versatile weapon able to make both cuts and thrusts, though some are designed to favour one blow more than the other. A thrust is a lot more useful if you wish to penetrate armour or hit a precise location, but recovering from such a blow comes with it's own problems. A slash or cut may be useful for one situation and not useful for another.



Unfortunately, I cant quote once source in particular, I draw from a number of articles I've read through the years on a variety of topics and I have no idea if I could find them again. I'm not saying I know everything about medieval combat and I'm sure there is a lot I don't know and I might be wrong on some points. However, I know enough that I think I can confidently say what I have.

Well, if you do happen to track some of them down, I would be interested. I am reasonably well read in the subject of medieval warfare and have yet to come across these claims.

These are works of the medieval imagination, but they do accord with the literary sources:

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf10/otm10va&b.gif

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf12/otm12ra&b.gif

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf12/otm12rc&d.gif

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf16/otm16vc&d.gif

I found sword thrusts to be relatively rarely depicted in medieval art and literature. I would love to be proven wrong, to honest, but that's just the direction the evidence points in, as far as I can tell.

ColdBrew
2008-02-28, 05:26 PM
Like most of the Combat system, it sound's right at the beginning, but I don't really like how no matter how skilled a rouge gets, the clumsiest idiot who is able to focus on defending himself can stop himself from getting hit in a vital area. Though there are lots of ways to hit somebody with a sneak attack without ambushing or flanking them, I find it somewhat wierd that they can't just do it by being really really skilled.
Then again, the system works even if it dosn't make that much sense.
They can't do it by just stabbing about with their pokey stick, which is what standard attacks represent. However, a sufficiently skilled rogue can misdirect the enemy, causing him to leave an opening exploitable for spleen stabbing. It's called feinting.

kingpocky
2008-02-28, 05:31 PM
It's true that the rules for weapon damage are a simplification. Different weapons are designed for different styles, armors, and kinds of injury. However, the systems for combat, AC, and HP are all simplifications as well. For anything more than smalls changes, you'd have to rework them as well.


Yes, ultimately, a two handed sword will do a better job of cutting up your body, but both weapons are basically equally likely to kill you.

Both are equally capable of killing you if they deal the right kind of injury. The possibility of that happening is quite different. If two guys simply charge at each other swinging, the two-handed sword has a clear advantage. As others have already explained, daggers are usually used for utility, extremely close quarters, and concealment- all of which are more or less modeled in the rules.


Of course a cut from a dagger could *also* be a shallow slash that spills blood and little else, but then a hit from a two handed sword could be a hasty blow made with the pommel, or a thrust made at the half-sword.

Larger weapons will occasionally roll a 1 or 2. This logically represents a weaker blow from a weapon with more potential. Daggers are underpowered with respect to everything else though, I'll admit that. You could justify increasing their critical range to 18-20 to represent their precision, but then you'd just end up with the kukri. You switch back to the old 3.0 version where they're exotic weapons that deal 1d6 damage, or you could just use the kukri stats as is and call it a dagger. The dagger is close enough to the line between simple and martial weapons that you could justifiably let it go either way.

There is the issue of how daggers were used for piercing through joints in metal armor, but that's a problem with the AC system. The problem also comes up when you look at the fact that crossbows are just as likely to injure an armored opponent as shortbows. It's assumed that all factors that prevent something from hurting you are basically the same. There are a lot of other unrealistic assumptions. Speed is irrelevant unless the weapon is finessable and you have the feat. Reach is irrelevant unless you're using a polearm.

Of course, all these assumptions make things much easier. I believe there are other systems out there that have more realistic rules at the price of simplicity. Larger weapons need some kind of advantage for the system to be realistic or believable. If you can design something that works better, more power to you.

Also, while we're on the topic of historical usage, are shields underpowered? Mechanically, a fighter is usually better off using a two-handed weapon. That doesn't seem realistic to me.

BRC
2008-02-28, 05:31 PM
They can't do it by just stabbing about with their pokey stick, which is what standard attacks represent. However, a sufficiently skilled rogue can misdirect the enemy, causing him to leave an opening exploitable for spleen stabbing. It's called feinting.
Which needs 2 feats before it's useful. (Combat expertise and then Improved Feint). Combat expertise isn't really that bad as feats go, except that my group dosn't usually remember about fighting defensivly anyway so it's not that useful. As I said, the system works just fine, there are countless ways to sneak attack somebody. It just bugs me alittle that the base of the system dosnt' assotiate weapon skill with damage dealt.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-28, 05:32 PM
As far as I understand it, Combat Knives don't see a lot of action because of the nature of modern warfare. However, modern Soldiers are trained in their use and issued them for combat, not to open their lunches with (even if that is what they end up being used for). Ideally, they'll never have to use them, but their primary function is indeed for close quarters combat.I'm reminded of the C4 landmines used in Vietnam. They made a perfect stove.

And the actual stoves ended up cannibalized for parts.

Lord Tataraus
2008-02-28, 05:44 PM
Well, I would suggest that the 'slashing' category isn't the same as 'cutting', if you see what I mean. An Axe and a Mace will interact with body armour and flesh very differently from one another. D&D already differentiates them and with good reason.
Quite true, I should have made the distinction in the first place, that's my fault.


You're probably primarily thinking of a 'full harness' here. A 'cut' will indeed do very little to such armour, but again an Axe and a Mace will affect it quite differently. On the other hand, the frequency of such armour on the battlefield is up for debate. At Agincourt, for instance, even if all of the Men at Arms were in full harness, about 80% of the English Army is thought to have been made up of Archers who almost certainly couldn't have afforded such gear. The French might have had a lot more, of course.
Most likely, yes. I am far from an expert in medieval warfare and know a lot more about ancient Greek and Roman warfare which might get me confused a bit :smallredface:


Curved swords were reasonably common weapons in the medieval period, you can see them on manuscript illustrations, though they are less evident than the cruciform sword. Of course, the Chinese common soldier made heavy use of the curved Dao over the straight bladed Jian, even though the frequency of body armour varied considerably. Interestingly, though, almost all medieval literature (fictional and historical) describes the blows given by a sword as slashing or cutting the opponent. This is in direct contrast to Vegetius, who complains that the soldiers of his time (c. 500 AD, I think) are not utilising the thrust with their swords, which he considers more deadly, but the cut. There are a couple of interesting ARMA articles on the subject of the efficiancy of the thrust over the cut, which you can read here: The Myth of Cutting versus Thrusting Swords (http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html), What makes an Effective Sword Cut? (http://www.thearma.org/essays/howacutworks.htm) and Talhoffer Long Sword: Armoured and Unarmoured (http://www.thearma.org/essays/Talhoffer/HT-Web.htm)

What it basically comes down to is that a Sword is a versatile weapon able to make both cuts and thrusts, though some are designed to favour one blow more than the other. A thrust is a lot more useful if you wish to penetrate armour or hit a precise location, but recovering from such a blow comes with it's own problems. A slash or cut may be useful for one situation and not useful for another.
Ah, well I haven't looked too extensively into medieval warfare, so most of what I see and hear about are the straight blades. I've only heard about curved blades in more eastern areas and in the B.C.s Thanks for the links, I be sure to check those out.


Third to whomever said it, katanas are cutting weapons. Watch a katana, gata? (not sure if that applies, but whatever the equivalent is.). It has a very sharp edge and was meant as a cutting weapon. You can stab with it, but a devoted piercing weapon it isn't.
Yes, a katana can cut very well, but it wasn't used to cut in combat. It was used as a piercing weapon. Against an armored opponent the katana is used as a piercing weapon, only against unarmored foes was it used as a cutting weapon and since that is rare in combat, it is effectively a piercing weapon.

ColdBrew
2008-02-28, 05:54 PM
Which needs 2 feats before it's useful. (Combat expertise and then Improved Feint). Combat expertise isn't really that bad as feats go, except that my group dosn't usually remember about fighting defensivly anyway so it's not that useful. As I said, the system works just fine, there are countless ways to sneak attack somebody. It just bugs me alittle that the base of the system dosnt' assotiate weapon skill with damage dealt.
What else is a level 20 rogue spending his feats on? Also, the closest thing D&D has to weapon skill is BAB, which does factor in since you have to hit before you can roll those sneak attack dice. It also plays a part in the aforementioned feint.

Saph
2008-02-28, 06:03 PM
Also, while we're on the topic of historical usage, are shields underpowered? Mechanically, a fighter is usually better off using a two-handed weapon. That doesn't seem realistic to me.

You're right, it isn't; while the OP's criticism isn't well-founded, this one is. In D&D, a large shield only gives +2 AC, which is only a 10% less chance of being hit. In comparison to the massively increased damage output from a two-handed weapon, that just doesn't cut it beyond levels 1-3 or so.

I'm not an expert on historical weapon types, but the times I've gone LARPing, I've found it's the other way around. Shields are very good at what they do, and getting a blow past an alert opponent with a shield is very difficult, while opponents with two-handed weapons are easy targets.

- Saph

Titanium Dragon
2008-02-28, 06:12 PM
Your base assumption is incorrect; namely, in that a two-handed sword and a dagger are equally dangerous and equally likely to kill you. This is not so.

The reason you use bigger weapons is threefold - they're easier to hit with, they're easier to defend with, and you can hit them from further away. Moreover, any hit you do land with a big weapon is likely to deal some damage - hit someone with a sword anywhere on their body, and it will deal them some serious dagger. Slashing or stabbing someone's hand or arm with a dagger and they aren't even likely to die from blood loss, and they may well take your weapon and pound you while your weapon is slashing them. They can also grapple you much more easily because it is easier for them to get closer.

Fundamentally, it is not unrealistic to expect a sword to deal more damage than a longsword, both in the sense that it is more likely to hit without being hit in the first place, getting in a good blow, and any particular blow is much more likely to be fatal.

Swordguy
2008-02-28, 06:36 PM
Yes, a katana can cut very well, but it wasn't used to cut in combat. It was used as a piercing weapon. Against an armored opponent the katana is used as a piercing weapon, only against unarmored foes was it used as a cutting weapon and since that is rare in combat, it is effectively a piercing weapon.

What?!

OK. I can't stay out of this anymore.

Source. Please...I want a source on this. You've got three statements that I read as flat wrong.

1) "Against an armored opponent the katana is used as a piercing weapon..."
2) "...only against unarmored foes was it used as a cutting weapon..."
3) "...since that [facing unarmored foes] is rare in combat..."

Please, elucidate. I'd love to hear first-hand experience, or see a plethora of sources attesting to this.

BRC
2008-02-28, 06:43 PM
What?!

OK. I can't stay out of this anymore.

Source. Please...I want a source on this. You've got three statements that I read as flat wrong.

1) "Against an armored opponent the katana is used as a piercing weapon..."
2) "...only against unarmored foes was it used as a cutting weapon..."
3) "...since that [facing unarmored foes] is rare in combat..."

Please, elucidate. I'd love to hear first-hand experience, or see a plethora of sources attesting to this.
I don't claim to be an expert, but logically:
If your opponent is wearing armor, It will be better to pierce the armor then slash the armor hoping you cut deep enough. You want to penetrate the armor and then get them beneath, the best way to do this is to focus the force of your blow on as small an area as possible instead of spreading it out with a slash. Therefore Piercing.Slashing against armored Foes.
Ergo
You would only slash against unarmored foes, because against armored foes it would be better to pierce. Oh there were proably exceptions, but in general thats the way it worked.
Combat in this case usually refers to War. On a battlefield almost everybody will be wearing armor of some sort. the Media portrays alot of combat where people don't wear armor or Armor is Useless, but in actual combat situations, soliders would be wearing armor, and it would be useful. Especially if somebody tried to slash at it. Run an experiment, take a kitchen knife and a piece of cardboard, now try to slash the knife through the cardboard. now thrust the knife through the cardboard.

fendrin
2008-02-28, 07:15 PM
You're right, it isn't; while the OP's criticism isn't well-founded, this one is. In D&D, a large shield only gives +2 AC, which is only a 10% less chance of being hit. In comparison to the massively increased damage output from a two-handed weapon, that just doesn't cut it beyond levels 1-3 or so.

I'm not an expert on historical weapon types, but the times I've gone LARPing, I've found it's the other way around. Shields are very good at what they do, and getting a blow past an alert opponent with a shield is very difficult, while opponents with two-handed weapons are easy targets.

- Saph

Very very true. That is the true reason that two-handed swords were rare historically. A shield and one handed weapon was much more effective.

The only two-handed weapons that really saw much use in organized warfare were polearms, particularly spears. Kung Fu practitioners refer to the spear as 'The King of Weapons'.

Corolinth
2008-02-28, 07:25 PM
As a physics teacher how much voltage it takes to kill a man, and he is pretty much guaranteed to answer "it isn't the voltage that kills you, it's the current". The voltage is what pushes the electric current through your body, but ultimately it's the actual physical movement of electrons through your internal organs that does the - well - damage.Actually it's the charge that kills you.

ColdBrew
2008-02-28, 08:05 PM
Actually it's the charge that kills you.
Which is why you should always have a readied action to move away.

Neon Knight
2008-02-28, 08:26 PM
The effectiveness of weapons in real life, modern or medieval, is quite frankly uncertain and consists of a lot of debate, "expert" opinions, conjecture, outright speculation, misconceptions, and even lies alongside informed guesses and reasonable assumptions with very little to distinguish one from the other.

That being said, the knife does seem to fulfill a role in modern combat more as a tool than a weapon, due to automatic firearms. WWI was a much different situation. While bayonet charges against machine gun positions proved ultimately and almost totally futile, trench storming and raids involved extremely close quarters combat in which knives and improvised weapons, alongside fists, seemed to be the main players. If most of the testimony I've read is to be believed.

Daggers/Knives use, proliferation, and purpose in medieval times probably varied from era to era and culture to culture, and thus claiming any one employment of said weapons as "how it was done" is not precisely accurate in my opinion.

I do wish Core DnD could support a Turokish character who used a knife to kill big reptilian monsters, but unless I use ToB (which quite frankly doesn't care what type of weapon you use. You can do a Strike of Perfect Clarity with your motherturduckin' ****.) it won't be effective.

UserClone
2008-02-28, 08:27 PM
I use a Vitality and Wound Points (VP/WP) system, and I've considered making all weapons do the same amount of VP damage, while still giving them variations on WP damage. Or the other way around.

Any feedback or suggestions on that idea?

Yes, Draz. I would have to say that, to me, having the Larger, more beefy weapons do more VP damage, and keeping the WP damage the same as the small ones, makes the more sense in that case, since the VP represents your ability to avoid blows, and/or redirect them to less damaging or vital areas. So the more you get knocked about by an axe, the harder it will eventually get to avoid zee pain (WP damage). You will likely be less affected if a knife clangs off your armor.

Demented
2008-02-28, 08:34 PM
Run an experiment, take a kitchen knife and a piece of cardboard, now try to slash the knife through the cardboard. now thrust the knife through the cardboard.
Kitchen knives are in the same class of weapons as letter openers and ice picks.

Problem is, puncture wounds need to hit a critical organ, such as the heart, the brain, or a kidney, in order to be lethal. Otherwise the internal hemorrhaging isn't going to be sufficient to die from. If you want to kill someone by stabbing with a kitchen knife, and you can't afford to go for 'precision damage', then you'll need to stab them dozens of times in order to kill them, either hoping to hit a crucial organ, or hoping to do enough damage to equal what you would have gotten from a few slashes with a decent machete.

Hence, most hand-held weapons meant to deal with armored foes are neither daggers or swords... Spears and arrows do well, since their heads use sharp flanges that are equivalent to sword slashes, and you can effect a tremendous amount of force behind them. If you must insist on swinging a weapon against your armored foe, use a hammer or axe. (Even a crowbar would work.)

Ascension
2008-02-28, 08:36 PM
unless I use ToB (which quite frankly doesn't care what type of weapon you use.

Objection! ToB is almost completely useless for a character focusing on ranged combat.

Patashu
2008-02-28, 08:37 PM
Semi-related; if HP is a function not only of vitality but of dodging/blocking skill, morale, toughness et cetera, shouldn't cure x wounds spells scale with max HP instead of healing fixed amounts (because your actual vitality is the same as always but spread over more points of HP)?

Neon Knight
2008-02-28, 08:41 PM
Objection! ToB is almost completely useless for a character focusing on ranged combat.

Touché.

I always forget that.

Matthew
2008-02-28, 08:54 PM
Semi-related; if HP is a function not only of vitality but of dodging/blocking skill, morale, toughness et cetera, shouldn't cure x wounds spells scale with max HP instead of healing fixed amounts (because your actual vitality is the same as always but spread over more points of HP)?

The way I rationalise this is that excessive Hit Points are in fact largely 'Luck' or 'Divine Favour' in the form of Positive Energy and that the amount a character has increases as he scales in power level (same reason he can survive multiple Negative Energy Attacks as he gets higher level). In this case it is not at all surprising that they are restored by Healing Spells, since those draw on the Plane of Positive Energy.

Demented
2008-02-28, 09:33 PM
I always preferred viewing high-level-characters as rediculously tough bastards with flesh that absorbs damage like solid steel.

To think of a contemporary example: Keanu Reeves in one of those matrix movies blocking a sword slash with his bare hand. He still gets wounded... Barely. Other contenders: Action heroes jumping off rediculously high perches into the water below, or being thrown into piles of wooden pallettes (managing to break every one) by a steroid-using sumo-wrestling russian, and still getting up for more, a la James Bond.

As far as the heroes who can only take one shot, but always seem to avoid getting shot in the first place... Plot Armor Class and DM fudgery. =P

Citizen Joe
2008-02-28, 09:37 PM
The reason there is a plethora of different weapons is because each is more suitable for specific situations. Armored vs. Unarmored, Mounted combat, Close/restricted combat, etc. If it were just about the damage, they would have invented the perfect weapon thousands of years ago. But that isn't how it works. Weapon is created, it rules for a while, it gets countered by a tactic or armor, new weapon gets developed and the cycle repeats.

The problem here is that DND with it's hit point and armor class system doesn't model that.

Fiery Diamond
2008-02-28, 09:51 PM
Do people read the first page anymore? I forgive you all.
Joking. But seriously, my first page post was completely ignored. It addresses this exact issue, and explains why this debate (when talking about comparing low-level to high-level characters) is kinda pointless. Seriously. Read my post on the first page. My point of view is that high HP has nothing to do with dodging/blocking/moral/general weariness. Damage is damage. However, I compare the D&D setting (a FANTASY SETTING) to anime - average Joe gets hit once or twice and is down for the count. Hero gets gashes across his chest, legs, arms, and face and spits up blood but keeps fighting. They can just take more damage that would normally kill someone. Because they're the heroes. Because it isn't realistic, it's FANTASY.
There. That explain things? I think it does. That's why I see it that way.
-Fiery Diamond

sikyon
2008-02-28, 09:51 PM
Kitchen knives are in the same class of weapons as letter openers and ice picks.

Problem is, puncture wounds need to hit a critical organ, such as the heart, the brain, or a kidney, in order to be lethal. Otherwise the internal hemorrhaging isn't going to be sufficient to die from. If you want to kill someone by stabbing with a kitchen knife, and you can't afford to go for 'precision damage', then you'll need to stab them dozens of times in order to kill them, either hoping to hit a crucial organ, or hoping to do enough damage to equal what you would have gotten from a few slashes with a decent machete.

Hence, most hand-held weapons meant to deal with armored foes are neither daggers or swords... Spears and arrows do well, since their heads use sharp flanges that are equivalent to sword slashes, and you can effect a tremendous amount of force behind them. If you must insist on swinging a weapon against your armored foe, use a hammer or axe. (Even a crowbar would work.)

I object! A deep knife wound can cause you to bleed to death! This is the principle small caliber bullets work on. I also own a ka-bar, and stabbing is still the way to go with it.

Anyhow, I visualize HP as "plot armor" You see in moves how action heros can get blown up, shot stabbed, and still go on at full strength. That's how I picture HP, as litterally this layer of plot on you.

Demented
2008-02-28, 11:14 PM
Actually, small caliber bullets can operate quite differently among themselves, not to mention how differently they operate from knives. You can obviously bleed to death from either, of course. It's too bad that D&D ignores bleeding. Apparently that same muscle action that will close your stomach when an adventurer chops his way out of it will also stop the bleeding when your aorta is cut, right up until you hit negative hitpoints. Then, it only works 10% of the time.

Once you hit negative hitpoints, for that matter, everything bad that should have been happening to you earlier immediately starts happening to you now. Apparently, you recieve negative plot armor. ;)

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-29, 04:14 AM
Wow, lot of replies since last night (got distracted by the PS2).

I'm not going to reply to individual posts, just general points (and I'm leaving the electricity thing alone for now).

People are, of course, absolutely right that swords are better melee weapons than knives in a straight, stand up fight. As people say, knights of old didn't charge into battle with daggers.

Thing is, a lot of the time in D&D you aren't *in* a straight, stand-up fight. You're fighting in a five-foot corridor, or thick jungle, or a crypt surrounded by deadly miasmas. Yet somehow you always have all the space you need to swing a six foot metal bar over your head with risk of it tangling, fouling, or otherwise getting messed up.

The modern military use knives rather than swords. Yes, part of the reason for this is all-round utility, but they *do* sometimes use them in close-quarters fighting. Another poster has pointed out that they avoid using their knives at all costs, but I rather feel that this supports my point more than anything else. The exact quote here is:


They don't use the knives as weapons often(or at all, if they can help it), because it gives you the same effective range as your opponent, which means they are in range of you.

In other words: knife fights are dangerous.

It's only easy to defend yourself against a man with a dagger if you have a longer weapon than he does, and if you have the space to use it properly. If you're unarmed, only have a dagger yourself, or are trying to use a missile weapon, then the dagger is a serious threat, just as much of a threat as a greatsword.

Yes, the rules are an abstraction, but that's sort of my point. The rules are abstract enough that they don't cover the situations in which a dagger actually *is* extremely dangerous (sure, a dagger can be used in a grapple, but it can still only be used for 1D4 + Strength Mod damage) but not so abstract that they don't cover the reach and mass advantages of the greatsword. The Hit Point rules are abstract enough (or heroic enough, depending on how you count it) that the enormous, cleaving blows of a greatsword just bounce off the skin of a high level fighter, yet still the weapon is somehow more dangerous.

The D&D damage system is so abstract that it doesn't even account for PCs bleeding, much less having their limbs severed, so how are these greatsword blows so much more dangerous than dagger thrusts?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-29, 04:19 AM
Do people read the first page anymore? I forgive you all.
Joking. But seriously, my first page post was completely ignored. It addresses this exact issue, and explains why this debate (when talking about comparing low-level to high-level characters) is kinda pointless. Seriously. Read my post on the first page. My point of view is that high HP has nothing to do with dodging/blocking/moral/general weariness. Damage is damage. However, I compare the D&D setting (a FANTASY SETTING) to anime - average Joe gets hit once or twice and is down for the count. Hero gets gashes across his chest, legs, arms, and face and spits up blood but keeps fighting. They can just take more damage that would normally kill someone. Because they're the heroes. Because it isn't realistic, it's FANTASY.
There. That explain things? I think it does. That's why I see it that way.
-Fiery Diamond

This one I did want to reply to individually, since you got ignored on page one.

You see, I view this as actually *supporting* my argument. Fantasy heroes get stabbed, shot full of arrows, thrown of buildings, and take enormous axe blows to the face, but it causes little more than cosmetic damage.

In other words: all weapons do the same damage to fantasy heroes to wit: little or none.

Saph
2008-02-29, 07:13 AM
The modern military use knives rather than swords. Yes, part of the reason for this is all-round utility, but they *do* sometimes use them in close-quarters fighting. Another poster has pointed out that they avoid using their knives at all costs, but I rather feel that this supports my point more than anything else. The exact quote here is:

In other words: knife fights are dangerous.

I think you might have missed the point of that quote. He's not saying "Knives are really dangerous, so they're effective weapons!" He's saying "Knives are really dangerous to use, because they require you to be suicidally close to your opponent."

The reason modern armies still issue knives is because they aren't intended as primary weapons, and because they have a bunch of other advantages - but not because they do as much damage as a big sword, because they don't.

- Saph

Ascension
2008-02-29, 08:18 AM
Moving along the same line of thinking as the last few posts, it would be pretty easy to justify giving sword-wielding opponents AOOs against knife-wielding attackers due to the (not modeled in D&D) difference in reach... we should be glad the rules don't screw over knife fighters any more than they do...

LostOne27
2008-02-29, 08:37 AM
Funny. The knife the army issued to me is a gerber. The company has bayonets (combat knives with a hook so you can throw them on the end of your rifle), but doesn't even bother to hand them out. It's not like it matters anyway, since we were never taught to knife fight. And our bayonet training consisted of a few hours pretending to hit people with our rifles...without even having bayonets on them. Oh, and pugot sticks. Even the Drill Sgts said it was only for "aggression training."

As far as damage goes...bleh. Assuming everyone else is equal, a smaller blade is always going to do less damage than a larger one. 3.5 doesn't even try to model the speed thing (it did back in 2.0, I think, I don't have those books with me), so there's no use arguing about how much faster you can strike with a dagger than a sword.

And isn't a round (6 seconds) supposed to model everything about combat. I highly doubt that if someone's trying to hit me with a sword I'm going to just let them swing at me, then take my turn, then let them have a turn. The attacks/round is more along the lines of "openings/round."

Telonius
2008-02-29, 10:00 AM
Do people read the first page anymore? I forgive you all.
Joking. But seriously, my first page post was completely ignored. It addresses this exact issue, and explains why this debate (when talking about comparing low-level to high-level characters) is kinda pointless. Seriously. Read my post on the first page. My point of view is that high HP has nothing to do with dodging/blocking/moral/general weariness. Damage is damage. However, I compare the D&D setting (a FANTASY SETTING) to anime - average Joe gets hit once or twice and is down for the count. Hero gets gashes across his chest, legs, arms, and face and spits up blood but keeps fighting. They can just take more damage that would normally kill someone. Because they're the heroes. Because it isn't realistic, it's FANTASY.
There. That explain things? I think it does. That's why I see it that way.
-Fiery Diamond

I disagree. IMO, HP is not stamina. It does represent skill in blocking/dodging/etc, for the reasons I also posted on the first page.

ColdBrew
2008-02-29, 12:51 PM
Moving along the same line of thinking as the last few posts, it would be pretty easy to justify giving sword-wielding opponents AOOs against knife-wielding attackers due to the (not modeled in D&D) difference in reach... we should be glad the rules don't screw over knife fighters any more than they do...
Shadowrun melee weapons had reach, and it was a substantial bonus. The difference in reach was applied as a modifier to target numbers, which scaled exponentially every time they hit a multiple of 6.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-29, 01:28 PM
I think you might have missed the point of that quote. He's not saying "Knives are really dangerous, so they're effective weapons!" He's saying "Knives are really dangerous to use, because they require you to be suicidally close to your opponent."

Presumably the reason being so close to your opponent is "suicidal" however, is because said opponent also has a knife. Knives are dangerous to fight with, because they're most effective at a range at which it is really, really hard to defend yourself.

The argument being made against daggers doing more than 1d4 damage is that it is somehow *easy* to defend yourself against a man with a knife. This is fairly obviously untrue. It's easy to *beat* a man with a knife, if you have a bigger weapon and he's a long way away from you, but that's not the same thing.

I'd have nothing against knife-fighters drawing attacks of opportunity for attacking greatsword fighters, or even against knives being usable only in a grapple. It's the fact that a knife is effectively unable to inflict a life-threatening wound without specialist training (which is somehow different from the training required to use the weapon effectively in the first place) that I object to.


The reason modern armies still issue knives is because they aren't intended as primary weapons, and because they have a bunch of other advantages - but not because they do as much damage as a big sword, because they don't.


Several people on this thread have given reasons why soldiers avoid getting into fights with knives. None of them have said that the reason is "they don't do enough damage". Nobody has remotely suggested that a knife is not one hundred percent capable of killing an enemy combatant. They've just said that getting into a position where you can do it involves putting yourself in danger.

The main advantage a big, two-handed sword has over a knife is reach, not damage. Reach advantages in D&D are modeled using the Attack of Opportunity rules.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-29, 01:35 PM
Moving along the same line of thinking as the last few posts, it would be pretty easy to justify giving sword-wielding opponents AOOs against knife-wielding attackers due to the (not modeled in D&D) difference in reach... we should be glad the rules don't screw over knife fighters any more than they do...

That's more or less exactly what I'd suggest. Equalize the damage, give AoOs instead. It better models a reach advantage, doesn't conflict with existing rules, and doesn't make daggers artificially weak.

You could also fairly trivially have an Improved Unarmed Strike equivalent for daggers.

Matthew
2008-02-29, 02:04 PM
Interestingly, it is my understanding that in OD&D all weapons did 1d6 damage and it is noticable that the variance between weapons has increased over the course of editions. For what it's worth, I allow Daggers to ignore the -4 Penalty to hit in a Grapple and so long as the character has nothing in his off hand, they do 1d6 damage.

Saph
2008-02-29, 02:22 PM
Several people on this thread have given reasons why soldiers avoid getting into fights with knives. None of them have said that the reason is "they don't do enough damage".

They haven't said it because if you're desparate enough to be using a knife in combat, the amount of damage it's doing is the least of your worries. Nobody in the 21st century cares whether a sword does more damage than a knife, because if you have the slightest choice you're not using either. (And also because the answer's so obvious.)

Honestly, Dan, I think you make the weirdest arguments of any forum poster I've ever met. I do enjoy the threads you start, because they tend to generate lots of interesting replies, but you seem to go out of your way to defend the most bizarre positions imaginable.

- Saph

Dervag
2008-02-29, 02:27 PM
Dan:

Your argument that knives should be approximately as damaging and lethal as greatswords based on real world combat has some good weight to it. However, I would point out that all the experience you refer to involves human on human combat.

How do monsters fit into this picture?

One of the reasons the D&D combat system is so abstract is that it has to cover a lot of things that don't have anything like a humanoid physiology.

A D&D adventurer may find himself fighting swarms of murderous rats, rhinoceros-sized beasts, magical beings of pure force, or animated statues. Some of those creatures aren't even going to have a single location that can be hit for devastating effect (as one must do to kill with a knife). Others may have such locations, but it would be impossible to reach them effectively using a dagger.

If you're trying to kill a swarm of rats, you don't want a dagger. What you really want is something like burning oil, but if you have to use a melee weapon you'll want one that can potentially kill many rats per swing. Likewise, if you're fighting a fierce animal like a boar, let alone something like an owlbear or a bulette, you're going to want a big, heavy weapon like a spear or an axe or a greatsword. And if you're fighting a golem... well, your best bet is probably a sledgehammer.

ColdBrew
2008-02-29, 02:55 PM
Nobody has remotely suggested that a knife is not one hundred percent capable of killing an enemy combatant.
And you're one hundred percent capable of reducing an enemy combatant's hitpoints to zero with a dagger. It's just harder than using a two-handed sword to do the same job.


Your argument that knives should be approximately as damaging and lethal as greatswords based on real world combat has some good weight to it.
I wouldn't go that far. They're "as lethal" in the sense that, yes, both are weapons and both can kill you. However, "can kill you" is a uselessly broad basis for comparison, and we can certainly find more detailed criteria by which to judge them.


Others may have such locations, but it would be impossible to reach them effectively using a dagger.
I've never liked the idea of a halfling standing next to a dragon, delivering sneak attacks like nothing's wrong. Still, I suppose it makes as much sense as the fireball-in-an-airtight-room problem, and I haven't felt the need to houserule that yet. That's a gripe for a different thread, however.

Lord Tataraus
2008-02-29, 03:09 PM
What?!

OK. I can't stay out of this anymore.

Source. Please...I want a source on this. You've got three statements that I read as flat wrong.

1) "Against an armored opponent the katana is used as a piercing weapon..."
2) "...only against unarmored foes was it used as a cutting weapon..."
3) "...since that [facing unarmored foes] is rare in combat..."

Please, elucidate. I'd love to hear first-hand experience, or see a plethora of sources attesting to this.

The only source I know of off hand is indirect. It doesn't focus on the katana's use but does mention its use in combat for the sake of the article, anyway here you go. (http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm) I'll see if I can look into it more. Anyway, any blade that is used to cut metal chips very easily so a few swings in and its mostly useless, you don't want that in the middle of combat. The most efficient way to harm some one in armor is either by bashing him up or utilizing the weak points, hence poking the joints. Also, logically, most foes in combat will be sufficiently armored, it may not be metal, but its still armor that deflects a blade to some extent.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-29, 03:52 PM
Dan:

Your argument that knives should be approximately as damaging and lethal as greatswords based on real world combat has some good weight to it. However, I would point out that all the experience you refer to involves human on human combat.

How do monsters fit into this picture?


When you start factoring monsters into the picture, picking either abstract or concrete weapon effects becomes - IMO - even more important.

As you point out, a dagger isn't much good against a swarm of rats, but frankly neither is a greatsword. Sure, you can probably kill several with one swing, but only if they stand still long enough, and when the little buggers are running up your legs you might be better off frantically jabbing at them with a small knife than trying to bring your six-foot zweihender to bear on them.

The current D&D rules system falls (IMO again) embarassingly between stools. For example, I quite agree that a Greatsword should be far more effective than a dagger against skeletons, since a dagger isn't going to have any flesh to puncture while a greatsword can cleave bone with ease. D&D, however, disagrees, counting both as "Slashing" weapons, and making them both equally disadvantaged against skeletons.

If you treat the system as abstract, you don't have to worry about things like whether a dagger or a sword is better against a swarm of rats, or how exactly one fights an ooze anyway. You just assume that everybody is using their weapon the the optimal manner for a particular opponent. So against the Golem, the Greatsword wielder holds his weapon at the half-sword and thrusts, against skeletons the dagger-fighter grabs the things by the wrist and uses the leverage of his blade to snap bones. Against a dragon the Rogue doesn't just stand there sneak attacking, he crawls up on its back and wedges his blade in between its scales.

Alternatively you can go the other way, and have a very, very detailed combat system (like The Riddle of Steel or to a lesser extent The Burning Wheel). In both of those games daggers do slightly less damage than swords (and TRoS distinguishes between stabbing and slashing damage), but still well enough to kill a man. The big advantage of a sword over a dagger in such systems comes from reach, but if the knife-fighter does get inside the swordsman's guard, the swordsman is screwed.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-29, 04:05 PM
They haven't said it because if you're desparate enough to be using a knife in combat, the amount of damage it's doing is the least of your worries. Nobody in the 21st century cares whether a sword does more damage than a knife, because if you have the slightest choice you're not using either. (And also because the answer's so obvious.)

You see, I genuinely don't think that "damage" is ever a consideration when people are choosing weapons. Historical fencing masters talk at great length about which weapons have the vantage over which other weapons and their arguments are almost always about the security of the guard, the agility of the disengagement and of course good old reach. Silver, I understand, believed that the Short Staff actually beat the pants off of pretty much any other weapon going. Seldom if ever did they talk about "damage". In fact, the only people I can remember saying anything about damage were 17th century smallsword masters proclaiming the superiority of their (very light, thrusting) swords, because the wounds they inflicted were invariably fatal (which actually they probably were, given 17th century medical technology).

Obviously, a big heavy blade hits harder than a small light blade. The thing is that "hits harder" is not necessarily the same as "is more likely to kill you". That depends on how well the man *using* the weapon brings it to bear, how well you can react to his attack, and a bewildering array of other conditions.

It's not the fact that a man with a greatsword beats a man with a dagger that bugs me, it's that the man with the greatsword takes out the man with the dagger faster than the man with the dagger takes out somebody who's completely unarmed.


Honestly, Dan, I think you make the weirdest arguments of any forum poster I've ever met. I do enjoy the threads you start, because they tend to generate lots of interesting replies, but you seem to go out of your way to defend the most bizarre positions imaginable

I admit that I tend to take slightly hyperbolic positions, but I find that to be the best way to generate those interesting replies you were talking about.

Of course I don't believe that all weapons are literally exactly as damaging as each other in real life. I just believe that within the highly abstract world of D&D combat, damage depends far too much on the individual's choice of weapon, and far too little on, well, anything else.

It's not daggers getting a d4 and Greatswords getting 2d6 that's the problem, so much as daggers getting a d4, Greatswords getting a d6, and an extra 50% strength bonus, and a doubled effect from Power Attack and all of these effects being compounded by iterative attacks and the artifacts of a hit-point based system.

PnP Fan
2008-02-29, 04:07 PM
On the subject of the katana: It's a cutting weapon. If it were a piercing weapon, there would be not need for a 3 ft length of curved blade (like a cavalry saber, curved to slice through someone, and continue riding and draw the weapon out of their body). In combat, it is used primarily for cutting. It can be used (and I have trained to do this, though I've never actually done it) in a manner to slip the blade between plates of armor, and then cut the throat/whatever. It can be used as a piercing weapon, particularly to stab the opponent in the throat (underneath the helmet/mask piece, but above the breastplates), but you run the risk of the blade binding in the bones of the neck / collar. When it comes to cutting Japanese armor, I have to admit, I'm not exactly an expert. My understanding is that the armor was largely lacquered wood, cloth, with some metal (I believe steel is a somewhat rare commodity in medieval japan, but I can't giveyou a source for that, it's something I read somewhere. . sorry). With a poor strike (a chop instead of a cut), as I understand, the sword was quite likely to bounce off of the armor, with little damage done. A proper slice/cut would wear through the armor, and cut the soft stuff inside though. (Think of the difference between cutting your steak with a knife, and chopping at it with the same knife.)

Oh, and I'm fine with variable weapon damage. I don't get too wrapped around the axle about this stuff, especially when the difference is nearly insignificant at higher levels. (someone pointed this out already, just supporting their point)

BRC
2008-02-29, 04:49 PM
I don't think that Daggers should deal as much damage as larger weapons, not by a long shot. However, I don't think they should be as weak as they are.

Saph
2008-02-29, 08:14 PM
It's not daggers getting a d4 and Greatswords getting 2d6 that's the problem, so much as daggers getting a d4, Greatswords getting a d6, and an extra 50% strength bonus, and a doubled effect from Power Attack and all of these effects being compounded by iterative attacks and the artifacts of a hit-point based system.

A 1d4 dagger looks weak compared to a 2d6 greatsword, but if you compare it to a 1d8 longsword, the difference is much smaller, particularly at higher levels. When you're getting +4 from your weapon enhancement, +6 from your magically-boosted Strength, and an extra 2d6 of energy or holy damage stacked on top, the difference between a d4 and a d8 becomes not such a big deal anymore (only about 10%).

I think this isn't so much of a problem with variable weapon damage as it is with the general dominance in D&D of two-handed weapons over one-handed ones (which is a much bigger issue IMO, since it does more to restrict players' options).

- Saph

Dervag
2008-02-29, 10:23 PM
If you treat the system as abstract, you don't have to worry about things like whether a dagger or a sword is better against a swarm of rats, or how exactly one fights an ooze anyway. You just assume that everybody is using their weapon the the optimal manner for a particular opponent. So against the Golem, the Greatsword wielder holds his weapon at the half-sword and thrusts, against skeletons the dagger-fighter grabs the things by the wrist and uses the leverage of his blade to snap bones. Against a dragon the Rogue doesn't just stand there sneak attacking, he crawls up on its back and wedges his blade in between its scales.What I'm trying to say is that in light of the fact that there are so many radically different kinds of monsters, variable damage makes more sense. While all weapons might be about as effective against some targets, some weapons are dramatically less effective against other targets. Hence the reasoning.

Even in the case of humans, you can make a case that a greatsword is far more likely to inflict a crippling wound in a single blow than a knife is. A skilled knife fighter can inflict crippling or lethal wounds, but it is not easy, especially if the target is resisting. Which is part of why knife fights result in so much injury even to the winner- you can't easily kill someone with a knife fast enough to stop them from cutting you.

And I can't think of a better standard for damage than "likelihood of inflicting a crippling wound."

Against many (though admittedly not all) types of monsters, a dagger is vastly less effective than a greatsword, because many monsters have natural armor, thick layers of tissue guarding their vitals, or a physical structure that simply has no obvious places for a dagger to attack. A greatsword may be able to harm a bulette where a dagger wouldn't stand a chance, for instance.


The big advantage of a sword over a dagger in such systems comes from reach, but if the knife-fighter does get inside the swordsman's guard, the swordsman is screwed.But one of the first things a swordsman learns is distance control. In all but a relative handful of situations, the swordsman has enough room to move that he can at least stop the knife-fighter from getting close and staying close long enough to stab him to death.

Situations where this is not possible would give the knife fighter an advantage, but in that situation the appropriate response would be to use grapple rules, because the knifeman's tactic is to seize his opponent and stab him or cut him repeatedly from extremely close distance.

FlyMolo
2008-02-29, 10:53 PM
Daggers do not do as much damage as greatswords. The trouble here is momentum. A greatsword is between 3-6 feet long, depending on your definition of "greatsword". It's also really heavy. As everyone who knows their physics knows, long+heavy+fast=MOMENTUM. In capital letters, because there's so much of it. Assuming the same sharpness, a Greatsword is going to hack you to bits. A knife simply doesn't weigh enough to cut through lots of muscles and bones. A knife hit on an exposed shoulder could cut, I dunno, a few inches deep, tops. It wouldn't be fun, but you'd live, probably. A greatsword hitting the same place would lay you open to the bone. You could die from that.

A hit from a greatsword>hit from a knife. I'd take the knife hit anyday. Neither would be fun, but I'd rather not die. And if you say a knife punctures stuff, so can a Greatsword. And better, because it weighs more and keeps plowing right on through you, whether you like it or not. Hit for hit, Greatswords simply hurt more. That's all folks.

Yes, daggers can strike faster, but with less momentum. No, that's not accounted for in the current system, except kinda in TWF. Yes, this sucks. But maybe 4e will get it right, as it seems they might.

horseboy
2008-03-01, 12:41 AM
The Nerf based weapons technology of D&D has always annoyed me. Even back when Expert gave that "special" magic power that let a weapon do x3 damage, that became a standard issue thing for all weapons. Generally it's why I prefer games like Rolemaster and Shadowrun where what matters most is actual skill, not which weapon is more phallic.

Demented
2008-03-01, 12:51 AM
If that were true, wouldn't it be the pike that does 2d6 damage?

Paragon Badger
2008-03-01, 01:35 AM
Because it's easier to work out.

If you really want to make D&D accurate... but let's face it, who does? :smalltongue:

If you really want to make D&D accurate. An attack roll and a damage roll are the same thing. But you have to account for varying lengths. No, not just 5ft and 10ft for reach weapons. But for each weapon, from a 16 inch short sword to the 32 inch long sword.

In my brief experience with LARPing, I felt the great advantage that one had with longer reach. It was like provoking an attack of opportunity for every 6 inches of distance. Though people much more skilled than me easily got me by knocking my polearm off to the side. :smallfrown: Although that's an exception, since only the tip of that weapon is really dangerous, and you can ignore it after you close the distance, unlike the greatsword/dagger scenario.

endoperez
2008-03-01, 05:08 AM
Two sword-and-boarders fight. They are pretty evenly matched, because they are able to parry each other's blows.

A sword-and-boarder fights a guy with a dagger. The sword-and-boarder has better reach and is better able to block his opponent's attacks, thanks to longer weapon and shield.

Two guys get angry at each other, draw their knives, and both end up with their guts outside them.

I'm trying to say that knife is just as lethal as a sword, if the knife is matched against a knife, and the sword against a sword. In fact, knife-fight is likely to end badly much faster, because parrying and blocking is harder.
However, to use a knife against a sword you'd have to be very desperate indeed. Or sword against a gun, or gun against a tank.


There are no rules for such thing in D&D, and you can't really do anything that would work. Here's a try, please don't laugh.
Everything has "advantage", which would be 0 for fists, 1 for dagger, 2 for most swords, 3 for spears and 4 for greatswords, or something.
Using a weapon with greater advantage gives you bonus 1 point of AC for every point of difference, and increases damage die by one and lets you make AoO for attacking you for a difference of three points.
Greatsword is 2d6 damage, +2 AC against swords, but 3d6 damage, +3 AC, AoO against dagger-wielders.
Shortspear is 1d6, +1 AC against swords.

Every 5 points of AC over 10 would give one point of advantage.

Greataxe would have base advantage of 2 but would negate advantage bonus from shields, monks would get bonuses to advantage at certain levels, dual wielding would give advantage from both rapier and dagger, etc etc.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-01, 05:23 AM
What I'm trying to say is that in light of the fact that there are so many radically different kinds of monsters, variable damage makes more sense. While all weapons might be about as effective against some targets, some weapons are dramatically less effective against other targets. Hence the reasoning.

I see the reasoning, I just genuinely don't think that, given the variety of monstrous opponents you encounter in D&D, you can say which weapon overall is going to be most effective.

So essentially we seem to be making the same observation, and drawing different conclusions, so we may be wandering into "agree to disagree" technology.


Even in the case of humans, you can make a case that a greatsword is far more likely to inflict a crippling wound in a single blow than a knife is. A skilled knife fighter can inflict crippling or lethal wounds, but it is not easy, especially if the target is resisting. Which is part of why knife fights result in so much injury even to the winner- you can't easily kill someone with a knife fast enough to stop them from cutting you.

No, the reason knife fights result in so much injury to the winner is that you can't reliably block a knife with another knife. It is most certainly not because the two knife fighters spend half an hour slashing each other slowly to ribbons.

If a man swings a sword at you, and you have a sword too, you can (fairly) reliably block his sword with yours. This is particularly true if his sword is big, heavy, and long, because he's going to be coming at you from further away.

If a man attacks you with a knife, and you have a knife too, you can't parry his blade with yours, the blade is too small, and it'll be too close before you get the chance to do anything. The best you can do is try to block with your hand, or catch him on the wrist with your own weapon. Either way it's a long shot and you are very, very likely to wind up just stabbing each other.


And I can't think of a better standard for damage than "likelihood of inflicting a crippling wound."

In a game with a concrete damage system, where damage literally means damage, I think you're absolutely right. The thing is that damage in D&D doesn't have anything to do with wounds, crippling or otherwise.

Again I'd bring up The Riddle of Steel for comparison. In that system a Greatsword does Strength + 3 damage on a blow, Strength + 1 damage on a thrust. A dagger does Strength - 2 damage on a blow, Strength damage on a thrust. So a blow from a greatsword does much more damage than a cut from a dagger, and a fair amount more damage than a thrust from a dagger.

Crucially, though, any one of those hits in TRoS is potentially crippling or fatal (even the dagger slash, although it's unlikely). It uses locational damage and so every time your character gets hit and gets wounded they actually get hit and get wounded.

In D&D, on the other hand, a character (or monster) can take a critical hit from a Greatsword dealing 30 points of damage and still not suffer a crippling wound. At this point I at least start finding the whole damage abstraction counter-intuitive. The increased damage of the greatsword is based on its ability to inflict the sorts of wounds it never actually inflicts.


Against many (though admittedly not all) types of monsters, a dagger is vastly less effective than a greatsword, because many monsters have natural armor, thick layers of tissue guarding their vitals, or a physical structure that simply has no obvious places for a dagger to attack. A greatsword may be able to harm a bulette where a dagger wouldn't stand a chance, for instance.

Again, I think you're making the mistake of comparing a light slash from a dagger with a heavy solid blow from a greatsword. A bulette is covered in thick armour plates, but it's got to be able to move so it's got to have some parts of its body that you can stick a knife in and hurt it. The Greatsword, on the other hand, is going to just whack against its armoured hide.

This is exactly the reason I brought up variable weapon damage on the "Crunch affecting Fluff" thread. The damage dealt by different weapons directly affects the way we imagine them functioning in character. You imagine a Greatsword hewing mighty chunks out of a Bulette's flesh, while a dagger scrapes harmlessly off of it. I imagine a greatsword clattering harmlessly against the beast's armour while the dagger slips nimbly into its leg-joints.

Against a large monster with thick natural armour, the most effective way to use a greatsword would be to hold it in both hands and thrust with it (which is how I understand longsword fighters historically dealt with their heavily armoured opponents). In this situation a dagger is only slightly less effective.


But one of the first things a swordsman learns is distance control. In all but a relative handful of situations, the swordsman has enough room to move that he can at least stop the knife-fighter from getting close and staying close long enough to stab him to death.

You're quite right that swordsmen learn distance control. You're quite right that it's one of the first and most important things you learn. The reason it's important is because distance pretty much controls the effectiveness of your weapon.

If, as you suggest, daggers take a long time to do any damage, a swordsman wouldn't need to *worry* about controlling his distance. He could just rely on his superior damage output to win the day - it doesn't matter if this guy stabs me a couple of times, because I can take him out at my leisure. The reason distance control matters is because once you lose control of distance, you lose any advantage you get from having a longer weapon.


Situations where this is not possible would give the knife fighter an advantage, but in that situation the appropriate response would be to use grapple rules, because the knifeman's tactic is to seize his opponent and stab him or cut him repeatedly from extremely close distance.

The problem is that the grapple rules still put the knifeman at a huge disadvantage, because he's still trying to take his opponent out by dealing 1d4 damage and now he's also got to cope with a -4 penalty to hit. Not to mention the fact that the greatsword wielder probably has a better grapple check than him because of his higher Strength modifier.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-01, 06:04 AM
I think this isn't so much of a problem with variable weapon damage as it is with the general dominance in D&D of two-handed weapons over one-handed ones (which is a much bigger issue IMO, since it does more to restrict players' options).

Ah, you see I view the two as being two sides of the same coin. They're both based on the same logic. Big weapons do more damage than small weapons, therefore two handed weapons do more damage than single handed weapons, therefore (and this is the crucial step) damage-enhancing effects should apply more effectively to big weapons than small ones.

The basic problem is that D&D is greatly confused about what it wants "damage" to mean. The damage caused by a weapon in D&D is proportional to the severity of the physical injuries it causes - but they never actually cause those injuries (even to human opponents).

A secondary problem here is the fact that - in real life and in fiction - damage isn't your primary concern when choosing a weapon. A chainsaw can deal fantastic amounts of damage, but it isn't widely used in either military service or for self defense because it's not actually practical to fight with. D&D, however (and RPGs in general) tends to place the emphasis purely on damage capacity chiefly because it's significantly harder to model anything else.

Thane of Fife
2008-03-01, 09:11 AM
If, as you suggest, daggers take a long time to do any damage, a swordsman wouldn't need to *worry* about controlling his distance. He could just rely on his superior damage output to win the day - it doesn't matter if this guy stabs me a couple of times, because I can take him out at my leisure.

I suppose I disagree with you here because, in my opinion, the reason the dagger takes so long to do any damage is because the swordsman's controlling his distance. He's not letting the guy with the dagger get in close enough to severely wound him, and his only wounds are the light ones the dagger-wielder had to struggle to inflict.

Also, again in my opinion, Hit Points only represent one thing - not being incapacitated. The average damaging hit - even the average damaging critical hit - represents only a decrease in one's ability to keep fighting. A non-fatal hit from a dagger is a scratch or other light wound. A non-fatal hit from a greatsword might be a thump on the head from the weapon's hilt, or maybe a big scratch. Either way, the extra force behind the greasword makes it harder to not be taken out by the next attack.

Part of D&D's assumption, I suspect, is that one is fighting a guy who has a longsword -esque weapon, and who's wearing some form of armor. You could fix this by instituting something like advantage, as someone above mentioned - give each weapon a rating, and then make a table. Cross-reference the attacker's weapon with the defender's, and you'll see how much damage the attacker does on a hit. (So, an Advantage 1 weapon might do 1d10 damage against an Advantage 0, 1d8 against an Advantage 1, and 1d6 against an advantage 2). Having a high AC or BAB could add to you advantage. I don't know.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-01, 09:57 AM
A secondary problem here is the fact that - in real life and in fiction - damage isn't your primary concern when choosing a weapon. A chainsaw can deal fantastic amounts of damage, but it isn't widely used in either military service or for self defense because it's not actually practical to fight with. D&D, however (and RPGs in general) tends to place the emphasis purely on damage capacity chiefly because it's significantly harder to model anything else.

Isn't that why Ashley (Ash, the main character) chose a chainsaw/Shotgun in Army of Darkness? It deals the most damage?

I thought it worked well at least.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-01, 10:02 AM
Isn't that why Ashley (Ash, the main character) chose a chainsaw/Shotgun in Army of Darkness? It deals the most damage?

I thought it worked well at least.Read the Vampire Survival Guide sometime. You might find it enlightening. :smallwink:

Fhaolan
2008-03-01, 10:05 AM
Part of D&D's assumption, I suspect, is that one is fighting a guy who has a longsword -esque weapon, and who's wearing some form of armor. You could fix this by instituting something like advantage, as someone above mentioned - give each weapon a rating, and then make a table. Cross-reference the attacker's weapon with the defender's, and you'll see how much damage the attacker does on a hit. (So, an Advantage 1 weapon might do 1d10 damage against an Advantage 0, 1d8 against an Advantage 1, and 1d6 against an advantage 2). Having a high AC or BAB could add to you advantage. I don't know.

There are games with this mechanic. In fact 1st edition had half of this, weapon vs type of armor modifiers. It just needed weapon vs weapon modifiers to fill it out.

Mind you, almost nobody *used* that mechanic, because it bogged down the flow of the game. :smallsmile:

Zincorium
2008-03-01, 10:06 AM
Isn't that why Ashley (Ash, the main character) chose a chainsaw/Shotgun in Army of Darkness? It deals the most damage?

I thought it worked well at least.

Ash picked those weapons because they were what available, and he could use a chainsaw effectively because he is just that cool. Add to that the fact that dismemberment only slowed deadites down... something less effective would have made the movie end a lot sooner I think.

In one of the endings for army of darkness he actually swaps the shotgun out for a lever action rifle.

Anon-a-mouse
2008-03-01, 10:36 AM
Look at it this way.

There are only a few points on your body where a strike with a knife could incapacitate you. There are only a few points on your body where a strike from a greataxe could not incapacitate you.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-01, 12:54 PM
Part of D&D's assumption, I suspect, is that one is fighting a guy who has a longsword -esque weapon, and who's wearing some form of armor.

I know, it just strikes me as a ludicrous assumption in a fantasy game where half the monsters don't even *have* weapons.

Cuddly
2008-03-01, 01:09 PM
Presumably the reason being so close to your opponent is "suicidal" however, is because said opponent also has a knife. Knives are dangerous to fight with, because they're most effective at a range at which it is really, really hard to defend yourself.

The argument being made against daggers doing more than 1d4 damage is that it is somehow *easy* to defend yourself against a man with a knife. This is fairly obviously untrue. It's easy to *beat* a man with a knife, if you have a bigger weapon and he's a long way away from you, but that's not the same thing.

I'd have nothing against knife-fighters drawing attacks of opportunity for attacking greatsword fighters, or even against knives being usable only in a grapple. It's the fact that a knife is effectively unable to inflict a life-threatening wound without specialist training (which is somehow different from the training required to use the weapon effectively in the first place) that I object to.



Several people on this thread have given reasons why soldiers avoid getting into fights with knives. None of them have said that the reason is "they don't do enough damage". Nobody has remotely suggested that a knife is not one hundred percent capable of killing an enemy combatant. They've just said that getting into a position where you can do it involves putting yourself in danger.

The main advantage a big, two-handed sword has over a knife is reach, not damage. Reach advantages in D&D are modeled using the Attack of Opportunity rules.

Then build a lock-down grappler build. He'll shred through humanoid opponents; espially ones spec'd for using a weapon in melee.

Cuddly
2008-03-01, 01:16 PM
A 1d4 dagger looks weak compared to a 2d6 greatsword, but if you compare it to a 1d8 longsword, the difference is much smaller, particularly at higher levels. When you're getting +4 from your weapon enhancement, +6 from your magically-boosted Strength, and an extra 2d6 of energy or holy damage stacked on top, the difference between a d4 and a d8 becomes not such a big deal anymore (only about 10%).

I think this isn't so much of a problem with variable weapon damage as it is with the general dominance in D&D of two-handed weapons over one-handed ones (which is a much bigger issue IMO, since it does more to restrict players' options).

- Saph

Or a ton of sneak attack damage that the sneaky types are going to be using.

Weapon damage, in D&D, just like their obtuse HP system, rolls a lot of stuff up into a single statistic.

Just as HP doesn't actually equal how many hits you can take, weapon damage doesn't actually represent how much damage the weapon can put out.

FlyMolo
2008-03-01, 03:22 PM
I would love to make a one-hander balancing mechanic, very simply done. Don't mess about with damage and the like, or advantage.

Give all light weapons a +1 to hit, and all two-handers a -1. one-handers get +0. (or -0, pick one.) Hopefully that would balance one-handers against two-handers. Ah, no it wouldn't. It doesn't scale. bah.

A sword n board is never going to deal as much damage as a twohanded beserker slasher. But he's not going to die as fast.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-02, 06:44 AM
A sword n board is never going to deal as much damage as a twohanded beserker slasher. But he's not going to die as fast.

Are you talking IRL or in D&D?

In D&D, the sword-and-boarder dies just as fast as the two-handed-weapon wielder, because +2-4 AC means jack at high levels.

The basic problem with D&D combat is that it's a resource allocation exercise. Both sides have this little "HP" meter above their heads, and whoever depletes their opponent's first is the winner. In practice a two-hander will take less damage in D&D, because he can kill his opponents faster, hence suffering fewer attacks, hence taking less damage. It's very, very rare for a shield to actually save your life in D&D.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-02, 06:45 AM
Just as HP doesn't actually equal how many hits you can take, weapon damage doesn't actually represent how much damage the weapon can put out.

Which is exactly why I think Variable Weapon Damage is a ludicrous idea.

Talic
2008-03-02, 06:58 AM
Ok, enough jibber jabber.

Let's look at it from the most common perspective, and WHY daggers weren't used as often on the battlefield.

Armor.

Armor was designed to deflect and absorb all but the most forceful blows. Yes, a dagger could be slipped through cracks, but this is exceedingly difficult.

The maul, the claymore, and the other weapons tore through that armor more easily, by virtue of delivering more force. In this regard, force really does translate to lethality.

What about larger creatures? Bears, Elk, Bison, Horses. Oh, a dagger can lame one, to be sure, if you're an expert shot. Indeed, you'll have to be pretty handy with every melee weapon to outfight a creature that depends on its defenses for food and survival. But the reach of the dagger, combined with more powerful frames, denser muscle, thicker skin, looser folds of skin, and the like, makes the likelihood of serious wounds drop much faster.

In short, the arguement against variable damage holds weight, until you factor in armor. Then it's easy to see why weapons with shorter reach and less penetration ability fell out of favor.

To make the game realistic, the ability to gain HP would be reduced, the power level of mid/high level creatures would be drastically reduced, and armor would provide some deflection ability, and some Damage reduction.

Oh, and then we'd remove magic, and all races that aren't human. And disallow any jump checks higher than the guiness book of records, and a lot of other things that make fantasy fun. No more psionics, goblins, magical beasts, aberrations, dragons, or the like.

Yep, now we're getting somewhere! Who cares about this "fun" that you speak of? Let's make this like real life!

Now we can add in jobs, and promotions, and toil, and families...

Oh wait... Now I'm playing the Sims.

But hey, at least it's realistic. Kinda. As long as you're not metagaming knowledge of where the rocks are in your field.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot, this is medieval. As long as you're not metagaming knowledge of where the rocks are in your LORD'S field.

Matthew
2008-03-02, 07:00 AM
It's very, very rare for a shield to actually save your life in D&D.

Depends what level you're talking about. At Level 1 it's still fairly common for a Shield to save the life of a Character because Hit Points and necessary Damage output are fairly low. Of course, in 3.0 the situation was less pronounced, the changes to Power Attack are what have made the real difference, not variable weapon damage itself.



Let's look at it from the most common perspective, and WHY daggers weren't used as often on the battlefield.

Armor.

Armor was designed to deflect and absorb all but the most forceful blows. Yes, a dagger could be slipped through cracks, but this is exceedingly difficult.

The maul, the claymore, and the other weapons tore through that armor more easily, by virtue of delivering more force. In this regard, force really does translate to lethality.

Even if this were true (and as far as I am aware it's not), variable weapon damage doesn't change with regard to Armour, so this is really only half an argument.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-02, 07:08 AM
Depends what level you're talking about. At Level 1 it's still fairly common for a Shield to save the life of a Character because Hit Points and necessary Damage output are fairly low. Of course, in 3.0 the situation was less pronounced, the changes to Power Attack are what have made the real difference, not variable weapon damage itself.

True, but that gets even more problematic. You stat up your lovely level 1 sword-and-board fighter, with Weapon Focus: Longsword and Weapon Specialisation: Longsword and plough through goblins for ten minutes. Then you hit level 5 and you realize that you really need a spiked chain.

Talic
2008-03-02, 08:29 AM
No, the reason knife fights result in so much injury to the winner is that you can't reliably block a knife with another knife. It is most certainly not because the two knife fighters spend half an hour slashing each other slowly to ribbons.

If a man swings a sword at you, and you have a sword too, you can (fairly) reliably block his sword with yours. This is particularly true if his sword is big, heavy, and long, because he's going to be coming at you from further away.


First off, forget what you saw in highlander. Typical swordfights had opponents decidedly NOT trying to block sword with sword. That was a LAST resort, as it invariably damages the blocking weapon far more than the striking one. Dodging was ideal, shield blocking was a second option. If those failed, MOST fighters preferred to take a blow on their armor than their sword. The armor had a better chance of standing up to the hit, and either way, they're pretty much dead if their object gives.

Bear in mind, it's about as hard to stop a 10 pound sword at 20 miles an hour as it is to stop a 1 pound dagger at 200. The two objects would have identical forward force. Even if you were inclined to bring up your blade to block such a hit (foolishly), at best, your shattering sword will deflect the blade enough to spare you from that one hit. Once.

Sword on sword blocking is completely against almost every medieval fighting style ever proven to be successful. To argue otherwise is foolishness.

On the other note, what you "haven't found to be true" is quite possibly from a simple lack of experience. Daggers, by their nature, were not designed to penetrate heavy plate style armor, on the magnitude of breastplate, scale, or heavier. Many creatures, especially larger ones, are more resistant to low penetration crippling injuries. Against a tiger, you have the underside, the throat, and the eyes. Those are your dagger locations. The maul? It'll fracture bones if it hits shoulder, back, head, neck, or the like. It has a wider vulnerability zone, BECAUSE of the additional force it carries. It thus, debilitates sturdy animals more easily. Good arguement for more damage? yup.

By your arguement, the following is true:

A stick of dynamite and a .357 magnum are equally deadly. Both are extremely lethal to humans, so both should hurt things equally. They have the same damage.

Or perhaps... A Desert eagle and a pellet gun are equally lethal. Both are incredibly deadly to field mice, having nearly the same kill ability, so both are equally deadly.

What your arguement fails to take into account is overkill. And that's why it's flawed. A knife wound to the chest may kill someone. It may not. Regardless, it'll seriously wound them.

A full force maul, impacting someone in the chest, barring an act of god, WILL kill them. Usually, the wielder will have to prop a foot on the remnants of your body to get it out, as well.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-02, 08:42 AM
First off, forget what you saw in highlander. Typical swordfights had opponents decidedly NOT trying to block sword with sword. That was a LAST resort, as it invariably damages the blocking weapon far more than the striking one. Dodging was ideal, shield blocking was a second option. If those failed, MOST fighters preferred to take a blow on their armor than their sword. The armor had a better chance of standing up to the hit, and either way, they're pretty much dead if their object gives.

Part of the problem here, of course, is that D&D squashes about 1500 years of armed combat into one setting. Parrying with the sword is standard in a lot of systems. Longsword, I understand, tends to use single-time defences quite a lot (deflect your opponent's blade and strike with your own at the same time).


Bear in mind, it's about as hard to stop a 10 pound sword at 20 miles an hour as it is to stop a 1 pound dagger at 200. The two objects would have identical forward force. Even if you were inclined to bring up your blade to block such a hit (foolishly), at best, your shattering sword will deflect the blade enough to spare you from that one hit. Once.

Even if I believed you knew what on earth you were talking about, your argument is patently self-contradicting. You are saying:

1) Greatswords were designed to penetrate armour, and would smash through it easily.
2) Medieval fighters would use their armour to soak greatsword blows.
3) Most blows were avoided by dodging.
4) Greatsword blows are harder to avoid than dagger strikes because they have more "force". By this logic it is harder to dodge a 10 ton truck traveling at 1mph than a 2g bullet traveling at 200mph.

If you're going to construct an argument, at least construct it consistently.

Matthew
2008-03-02, 08:44 AM
True, but that gets even more problematic. You stat up your lovely level 1 sword-and-board fighter, with Weapon Focus: Longsword and Weapon Specialisation: Longsword and plough through goblins for ten minutes. Then you hit level 5 and you realize that you really need a spiked chain.


http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph2_gallery/97175.jpg


Seriously, though, 'optimisation' is one of the reasons I generally don't play D20. I am fine with variable damage weapons so long as it is implemented to allow the choices to remain balanced and doesn't require excessive specialisation throughout level progression.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-02, 01:33 PM
Seriously, though, 'optimisation' is one of the reasons I generally don't play D20. I am fine with variable damage weapons so long as it is implemented to allow the choices to remain balanced and doesn't require excessive specialisation throughout level progression.

As I've said a couple of times before, I have no problem with variable weapon damage per se, it's the knock-on effects it winds up having that cause the trouble. It's the implicit assumption that the Greatsword wielders have to be the "damage dealers" in the party.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-02, 01:44 PM
As I've said a couple of times before, I have no problem with variable weapon damage per se, it's the knock-on effects it winds up having that cause the trouble. It's the implicit assumption that the Greatsword wielders have to be the "damage dealers" in the party.No, the greatsword wielder helps the monk carry the bags. The Druid's pet is the damage-dealer.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-02, 01:46 PM
No, the greatsword wielder helps the monk carry the bags. The Druid's pet is the damage-dealer.

Fair point.

Matthew
2008-03-02, 01:46 PM
I suppose it depends how far you go with it, how much of it is to do with the actual weapons and how much to do with the way they're used. I mean a Great Sword (7.0 Av.) used Two Handed only does 2.5 more points of average damage than a Long Sword (4.5 Av.) used Two Handed. Then it just becomes a question of combat styles and we all know that's pretty much one of the most broken elements of 3.5. Give me back 3.0 Power Attack and we're not looking at anything nearly as bad, though Two Handed Weapons begin to suck under that paradigm because of it.

I usually use the 3.0 version of Power Attack and grant 'true' Two Handed Weapons as much benefit from Strength to hit as they get to damage. Of course, it doesn't interact well with Combat Expertise.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-02, 01:55 PM
I suppose it depends how far you go with it, how much of it is to do with the actual weapons and how much to do with the way they're used. I mean a Great Sword used Two Handed (7.0 Av.) only does 2.5 more points of average damage than a Long Sword (4.5 Av.) used Two Handed. Then it just becomes a question of combat styles and we all know that's pretty much one of the most broken elements of 3.5. Give me back 3.0 Power Attack and we're not looking at anything nearly as bad, though Two Handed Weapons begin to suck under that paradigm because of it.

Power Attack is a big part of the problem, but those small differences in damage *do* add up. You can say that a greatsword only does 2.5 points of damage more than a longsword, but the other way to look at it is that it does 1.5 times as much damage.

Against low level characters - as a lot of people have pointed out, the difference isn't particularly important. 1d4 damage kills Joe Commoner, so does 1d6, so does 1d8, so does 2d6. I still think daggers should do a bit more damage but I don't actually find the scale that difficult to cope with. The problem is at higher levels, where one attack isn't going to hurt anybody.

This leads, further, to the weird situation where against a large number of weak opponents, you want to be fighting with a rapier and dagger - the TWF gives you extra attacks, which lets you clear the rabble. On the other hand the Greatsword becomes the weapon of choice for defeating a single, highly skilled opponent. In D&D, duels should be fought with Greatswords, while Rapiers should be the weapons of war.

Matthew
2008-03-02, 01:58 PM
Sure, but that only matters if bonus damage multiplies up at the same rate (such as by x1.5 Strength Bonus or what have you). 4.5 and 7.0 (I prefer D12's for Great Swords myself), just don't matter when you're tacking on +20 damage or even +5. I have had fun running the numbers over the years, but it's unquestionably Power Attack and feats that reduce Two Weapon Fighting Penalties that do the damage. Actually, here's the numbers I recently ran for AD&D to see what kind of balance could be achieved by:

Two Handed Weapon: THAC0 18, +2 to hit, 1D12+3 damage
One Handed Weapon: THAC0 18, +1 to hit, 1D8+2 damage
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [THAC0 18, -3 to hit, 1D8+2 damage]

[Difference is basically +1/+1 | +0/+0 | -4/0]



Against AC 20
Two Handed Weapon: 125%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 9.5
One Handed Weapon: 120%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 6.5
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [100% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 13

Against AC 19
Two Handed Weapon: 120%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 9.5
One Handed Weapon: 115%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 6.5
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [95% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 12.35

Against AC 18
Two Handed Weapon: 115%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 9.5
One Handed Weapon: 110%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 6.5
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [90% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 11.7

Against AC 17
Two Handed Weapon: 110%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 9.5
One Handed Weapon: 105%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 6.5
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [85% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 11.05

Against AC 16
Two Handed Weapon: 105%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 9.5
One Handed Weapon: 100%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 6.5
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [80% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 10.4

Against AC 15
Two Handed Weapon: 100%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 9.5
One Handed Weapon: 95%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 6.175
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [75% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 9.75

Against AC 14
Two Handed Weapon: 95%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 9.025
One Handed Weapon: 90%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 5.85
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [70% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 9.1

Against AC 13
Two Handed Weapon: 90%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 8.55
One Handed Weapon: 85%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 5.525
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [65% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 8.45

Against AC 12
Two Handed Weapon: 85%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 8.075
One Handed Weapon: 80%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 5.2
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [60% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 7.8

Against AC 11
Two Handed Weapon: 80%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 7.6
One Handed Weapon: 75%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 4.875
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [55% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 7.15

Against AC 10
Two Handed Weapon: 75%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 7.125
One Handed Weapon: 70%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 4.55
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [50% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 6.5

Against AC 9
Two Handed Weapon: 70%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 6.65
One Handed Weapon: 65%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 4.225
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [45% 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 5.85

Against AC 8
Two Handed Weapon: 65%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 6.175
One Handed Weapon: 60%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 3.9
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [40%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 5.2

Against AC 7
Two Handed Weapon: 60%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 5.7
One Handed Weapon: 55%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 3.575
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [35%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 4.55

Against AC 6
Two Handed Weapon: 55%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 5.225
One Handed Weapon: 50%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 3.25
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [30%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 3.9

Against AC 5
Two Handed Weapon: 50%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 4.75
One Handed Weapon: 45%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 2.925
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [25%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 3.25

Against AC 4
Two Handed Weapon: 45%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 4.275
One Handed Weapon: 40%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 2.6
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [20%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 2.6

Against AC 3
Two Handed Weapon: 40%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 3.8
One Handed Weapon: 35%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 2.275
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [15%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 1.95

Against AC 2
Two Handed Weapon: 35%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 3.325
One Handed Weapon: 30%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 1.95
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [10%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 1.3

Against AC 1
Two Handed Weapon: 30%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 2.85
One Handed Weapon: 25%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 1.625
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [5%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 0.65

Against AC 0
Two Handed Weapon: 25%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 2.375
One Handed Weapon: 20%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 1.3
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [0%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 0

Against AC -1
Two Handed Weapon: 20%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 1.9
One Handed Weapon: 15%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 0.975
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [0%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 0

Against AC -2
Two Handed Weapon: 15%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 1.425
One Handed Weapon: 10%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 0.65
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [0%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 0

Against AC -3
Two Handed Weapon: 15%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 1.425
One Handed Weapon: 10%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 0.65
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [0%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 0

Against AC -4
Two Handed Weapon: 15%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 1.425
One Handed Weapon: 10%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 0.65
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [0%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 0

Against AC -5
Two Handed Weapon: 15%, 1D12+3 (Av. 9.5) = 1.425
One Handed Weapon: 10%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5) = 0.65
Two One Handed Weapons: 2 x [0%, 1D8+2 (Av. 6.5)] = 0


Obviously, the number of Hit Points an individual opponent has will also play into these figures, but when it comes down to it, everything depends on how far you allow the damage dice to inflate. As long as the steps between remain small and few so will the variance.

Dervag
2008-03-02, 02:04 PM
Look at it this way.

There are only a few points on your body where a strike with a knife could incapacitate you. There are only a few points on your body where a strike from a greataxe could not incapacitate you.To expand on this, and counterpoint Hemmens' good arguments:

I think the damage die is intended to indicate the probability of an effective strike causing a disabling wound (one that reduces your HP to <0).

An 'effective strike' is here defined as any attack that forces you to noticeably weaken your own ability to avoid suffering further injury. It could be damage to your natural armor. It could be the result of a partially stunning blow to the head. It could be that you were forced into corps-a-corps with the opposing swordsman and had to exert heavily in order to break contact and continue the fight without being gutted. Or they had to skip backwards and push you back with an aggressive lunge to maintain distance control- a maneuver which can only work so many times before you manage to get past their guard and into your ideal combat distance.

Any attack that fails to do damage is not an effective strike- it's something that the opponent could keep taking for many minutes or hours without suffering any problems at all, such as pebbles bouncing off of his breastplate. Attacks that do damage may not actually cause a wound, but if they do not cause a wound it is because the target exerted itself in some way that they can only do so many times (they only have so much supernatural luck to avoid injury, or they can only wrestle away from the descending knife so many times).

In this case, the larger the damage of a weapon, the greater a chance that any given 'effective strike' will be lethal. And I think that this is dramatically appropriate.

Now, it's still an anomaly that effective strikes reduce your defenses but not your offense, but I'm leaving that aside for now.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-02, 03:00 PM
In this case, the larger the damage of a weapon, the greater a chance that any given 'effective strike' will be lethal. And I think that this is dramatically appropriate.


That sounds like a solid, sensible way to run a Hit Point based game, it's just that IMO that interpretation of Hit Points still calls for comparative parity between weapon damage.

A greatsword can reduce your ability to defend yourself in any number of different ways, it can strike against your shield with staggering force, it can be wielded in a number of different ways which greatly reduce your options for your own defense, it can beat your weapon aside far more easily than a dagger. All of these things could constitute "effective strikes" but none of them are potentially fatal.

By contrast, a dagger's options are very small indeed. Either it is presenting no threat to you at all or it is sticking between your ribs (or at serious risk of sticking between your ribs). A strike from a dagger has to be potentially fatal to be effective, whereas a greatsword can close down an adversary without ever making contact with him.

The greatsword-wielder has an obvious advantage over the dagger-fighter, but it seems to me more logical for that advantage to be in a greater likelihood of scoring an effective hit, rather than making those hits themselves more effective.

horseboy
2008-03-02, 03:51 PM
A full force maul, impacting someone in the chest, barring an act of god, WILL kill them. Usually, the wielder will have to prop a foot on the remnants of your body to get it out, as well.
It's a good thing I'm 5th level then. :smallcool:

Maerok
2008-03-02, 04:00 PM
I believe that the age-old rule of conduct needs an update:
Never talk about religion, consoles, politics, or medieval weaponry.

PnP Fan
2008-03-03, 08:42 AM
Are you talking IRL or in D&D?

In D&D, the sword-and-boarder dies just as fast as the two-handed-weapon wielder, because +2-4 AC means jack at high levels.
. . .
It's very, very rare for a shield to actually save your life in D&D.

Does no one give out kick butt shields to go along with kick butt armor? The two in combination well . . . they ought to really kick butt, defensively. Combine with Dancing shield (or whatever that special ability is that allows shields to defend for you, without having to weild them actively, especially nice for clerics), and you can get your two hander in as well.

ColdBrew
2008-03-03, 10:31 AM
Does no one give out kick butt shields to go along with kick butt armor? The two in combination well . . . they ought to really kick butt, defensively. Combine with Dancing shield (or whatever that special ability is that allows shields to defend for you, without having to weild them actively, especially nice for clerics), and you can get your two hander in as well.
Animated, a +2 enchantment. Sadly, it's pretty much the only way I'll use a shield in D&D.

edit: Of course, for half the price I can have a use-activated item of shield.

EvilElitest
2008-03-03, 11:36 PM
That bigger is better line is something i never thought of, nice catch
from
EE

Talic
2008-03-04, 01:33 AM
Even if I believed you knew what on earth you were talking about, your argument is patently self-contradicting. You are saying:

No... YOU are saying. That's the problem. By your own admission, you didn't understand my point. Let me try again, perhaps I was unclear.


1) Greatswords were designed to penetrate armour, and would smash through it easily.

No. In medieval eras, greatswords were non-existant. Largest sword commonly used was a hand-and-a-half sword (bastard sword, by D&D rules). Anything bigger was ridiculous, and far too tiring for most to use effectively.


2) Medieval fighters would use their armour to soak greatsword blows.

Again, no. They'd use their armor to soak other blows certainly, and it was a chancy proposition. But if the wearers of armor had no faith in its ability to stop blows...then why would they wear it? Armor restricted mobility, visibility, and the like. It had to offer a concrete benefit, or it would not have been used. That benefit was deflecting blows.


3) Most blows were avoided by dodging.

That was usually the preferred method of stopping an attack. Sadly, it's not possible often enough to call it "most". D&D sadly undervalues the shield, which was the "usual" method.


4) Greatsword blows are harder to avoid than dagger strikes because they have more "force". By this logic it is harder to dodge a 10 ton truck traveling at 1mph than a 2g bullet traveling at 200mph.

No. It's harder to STOP a 10 ton truck moving at 1 mph than a bullet moving at 200 mph. When referencing the protective value of armor, it's designed to deflect and absorb blows, not dodge them.

It's what's known as a layered defense. If you can't dodge, block. If you can't block, soak. If you can't either, you're hurt.


If you're going to construct an argument, at least construct it consistently.
It was consistent. Please refrain from inflammatory comments, however witty you may think them to be.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-04, 02:28 AM
Re: Talic

I have studied german sword manuals, and a great deal of the technique is centered around the bind- the moment at which two swords meet. This with two-handed longswords. The majority of the manual centered around unarmored fighters using two-handed swords, but there was also a significant section on armored vs. armored, sword and buckler, and even a section on unarmed combat.

Your statement that swords were not parried is thus disproven, as it only takes one example to do so, and there is entire school of swordsmanship based on the thing you say never happens.

"lol"

Talic
2008-03-04, 02:39 AM
Re: Talic

I have studied german sword manuals, and a great deal of the technique is centered around the bind- the moment at which two swords meet. This with two-handed longswords. The majority of the manual centered around unarmored fighters using two-handed swords, but there was also a significant section on armored vs. armored, sword and buckler, and even a section on unarmed combat.

Your statement that swords were not parried is thus disproven, as it only takes one example to do so, and there is entire school of swordsmanship based on the thing you say never happens.

"lol"

To quote myself, emphasis bolded:


Sword on sword blocking is completely against almost every medieval fighting style ever proven to be successful. To argue otherwise is foolishness.


In the future, try not to put your words in my mouth. I rather dislike the flavor of your tone.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-04, 02:50 AM
Almost every medieval fighting style. Nice way to play with words. Never mind that the german style was a dominant style at the time. You can dislike my tone all you want. You made a blanket statement about swordfighting in medieval times. It contained all manner of inaccuracies, most of which were pointed out by someone else. I simply pointed out an obvious glaring error.

Talic
2008-03-04, 02:56 AM
Almost every medieval fighting style. Nice way to play with words. Never mind that the german style was a dominant style at the time. You can dislike my tone all you want. You made a blanket statement about swordfighting in medieval times. It contained all manner of inaccuracies, most of which were pointed out by someone else. I simply pointed out an obvious glaring error.

It's not "playing" with words. I made an allowance for one or two styles that I may not be familiar with. Such as this one. It doesn't invalidate what I said, any more than showing one style of one part of an era disproves it.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't know everything. I try to allow for things I haven't seen when I make statements (which are not "blanket", as they allow for exceptions).

fendrin
2008-03-04, 08:54 AM
I have some VERY rudimentary training in zweihander combat, and I have much more extensive training in modern and renaissance fencing as well as various Asian martial arts.

I am under the impression that, regardless of style, while blade-to-blade contact is important, it was more about parrying(deflecting) & controlling than blocking. They key difference of course being just how much of the force of the attack is transmitted to your blade (and thus potentially causing damage).

Even in unarmed combat I have been taught that deflecting a blow is highly preferred over blocking it.

On a separate note... Skjaldbakka, I was under the impression that unarmored two-handed sword combat was typically a renaissance phenomenon (focussed more on dueling than war, and using larger swords). Can you tell us what manual you are referring to?

Something we should all be aware of is that D&D is trying to compress and balance fighting styles from hundreds (if not thousands) of years into a single coherent system. It is bound to be flawed and inaccurate.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-04, 11:25 AM
No... YOU are saying. That's the problem. By your own admission, you didn't understand my point. Let me try again, perhaps I was unclear.

No. In medieval eras, greatswords were non-existant. Largest sword commonly used was a hand-and-a-half sword (bastard sword, by D&D rules). Anything bigger was ridiculous, and far too tiring for most to use effectively.

I'm fairly sure that earlier you'd said that greatswords were designed to smash through armour, perhaps I was thinking of a different poster.


Again, no. They'd use their armor to soak other blows certainly, and it was a chancy proposition. But if the wearers of armor had no faith in its ability to stop blows...then why would they wear it? Armor restricted mobility, visibility, and the like. It had to offer a concrete benefit, or it would not have been used. That benefit was deflecting blows.

Obviously. But earlier in the thread I *thought* you had said that Greatswords (or possibly longswords) were preferred because they were great at "smashing through armour".


That was usually the preferred method of stopping an attack. Sadly, it's not possible often enough to call it "most". D&D sadly undervalues the shield, which was the "usual" method.

And the reason D&D undervalues the shield is because of exactly the kind of logic you're using here: big heavy powerful blows are better than small light blows, no matter where they land or how they are delivered.


No. It's harder to STOP a 10 ton truck moving at 1 mph than a bullet moving at 200 mph. When referencing the protective value of armor, it's designed to deflect and absorb blows, not dodge them.

A ten ton truck moving at 1mph won't hurt you at all. Meanwhile a bullet (or arrow for that matter) will punch through most armour with no problem.

Penetration in this kind of situation is mostly going to be about pressure. Which is why as far as I understand it the usual way to deal with an opponent in heavy armour was to take your longsword in both hands and thrust it like a spear.


It's what's known as a layered defense. If you can't dodge, block. If you can't block, soak. If you can't either, you're hurt.

But D&D doesn't remotely model that, the D&D version is: "If you're hit, you lose HP".


It was consistent. Please refrain from inflammatory comments, however witty you may think them to be.

Your argument hinged on the idea that armour couldn't reliably stop blows from a sword, but it could reliably stop blows from a dagger. You have since said the opposite.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-04, 11:29 AM
I am under the impression that, regardless of style, while blade-to-blade contact is important, it was more about parrying(deflecting) & controlling than blocking. They key difference of course being just how much of the force of the attack is transmitted to your blade (and thus potentially causing damage).


Sorry, my poor choice of words, I was using the term "block" to mean anything which involved interposing something else between yourself and the incoming weapon, either by stopping it dead or by deflecting it. (For what it's worth, the "stopping dead" style of blocking gets quite a lot of play in 16th-17th century swordplay). The point is that whichever euphemism you use, it actually is easier to block/parry/deflect a sword blow coming in from a distance than it is to do the same thing to a knife thrust coming in from inside your reach. It's a simple matter of timing.

fendrin
2008-03-04, 12:08 PM
Sorry, my poor choice of words, I was using the term "block" to mean anything which involved interposing something else between yourself and the incoming weapon, either by stopping it dead or by deflecting it. (For what it's worth, the "stopping dead" style of blocking gets quite a lot of play in 16th-17th century swordplay). The point is that whichever euphemism you use, it actually is easier to block/parry/deflect a sword blow coming in from a distance than it is to do the same thing to a knife thrust coming in from inside your reach. It's a simple matter of timing.

I'm actually not sure which choice of words you are referring to as being poor, as i was weighing in on the Skjaldbakka/Talic discussion. :smallamused:

I agree with you on it being harder to block/parry a (close) knife blow than a sword blow if you are using a weapon yourself, however the range advantage largely offsets that. In other words, unless I make a big mistake, the knife wielder will have a very hard time getting close enough to make it hard for me to block ( or rather, stop-thrust :smallwink:)

If I am unarmed, I would prefer to face a knife than a sword, because it is easier to block/deflect a knife than the sword (because it is easier to get to the attacker's arm).

Going back a ways, some people were claiming that a greatsword could bash through heavy armor. Not so. That is one of the main reasons behind the estoc. It was a sword specifically designed to punch through heavy armor... by having a ricasso and a reinforced blade so you can stab through the heavy armor. Most descriptions of zweihander (war) tactics I have seen have been sunder-based... destroy the enemy spears/pikes so that you can close enough to hit the wielders/ scatter their formation. Dueling tactics (again, I believe most manuals are renaissance twahanders rather than medieval zweihanders) would of course be totally different.

My understanding is that the most effective tactic against a mounted knight in very heavy armor was to kill the horse, then penetrate a weak point in the knight's armor while he was down (such as a stiletto or other thin dagger through the eye-slits, or under the armpit, in the gap between the leg armor and the groin, etc).

There are numerous anti-cavalry weapons that were specifically designed to attack the horse. For instance, the Chinese Horse Knife, also known as the Horse-cutting Knife. Arguably, pikes would be used against the horse instead of the rider when a formation faced a cavalry charge. That was certainly the case when Alexander's forces faced Darius's scythe-chariots (though apparently the horses would typically stop before running onto the spears), which then allowed other, more lightly armed soldiers to overwhelm the charioteers.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am not an expert, and I welcome evidence that contradicts what I say. Please don't just tell me I'm wrong, I'm way too stubborn to be convinced by that. Evidence is necessary.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-04, 02:41 PM
I'm actually not sure which choice of words you are referring to as being poor, as i was weighing in on the Skjaldbakka/Talic discussion. :smallamused:

Ah, right. I just meant that using the word "block" to mean any way of stopping an attack could have been poor (since it includes all sorts of different ways of dealing with an incoming blow, rather than just stopping it dead)


I agree with you on it being harder to block/parry a (close) knife blow than a sword blow if you are using a weapon yourself, however the range advantage largely offsets that. In other words, unless I make a big mistake, the knife wielder will have a very hard time getting close enough to make it hard for me to block ( or rather, stop-thrust :smallwink:)

Oh absolutely, it's just that the range advantage only counts if you - well - have the range advantage, which you might not always. D&D just automatically assumes that you do, even when grappling.


If I am unarmed, I would prefer to face a knife than a sword, because it is easier to block/deflect a knife than the sword (because it is easier to get to the attacker's arm).

I think it depends on what I was trying to do.

If I was trying to take the guy down, I'd probably have more chance against the knife-fighter, because his effective distance is the same as mine. If I was just trying not to get killed, I'd rather face the sword fighter, because it should be easier to get out the way of his attacks. It's very hard to reliably block the arm of a knife fighter anyway.

All in all, of course, I'd rather not be in the situation.

Either way, though, it comes down to reach, not damage. It's not like anybody says "oh it's okay, all I'll do is let the guy stick his knife in my gut, and then I'll punch him out".



My understanding is that the most effective tactic against a mounted knight in very heavy armor was to kill the horse, then penetrate a weak point in the knight's armor while he was down (such as a stiletto or other thin dagger through the eye-slits, or under the armpit, in the gap between the leg armor and the groin, etc).

That's pretty much my understanding as well, hence the "daggers should be effective weapons, at least in a grapple" argument.

fendrin
2008-03-04, 03:16 PM
Ok, this delves into homebrew a bit, but there isn't really a point to brining up a problem in D&D without looking for a solution to it.

Dan, If I am understanding you correctly, you feel that weapon damage should be roughly equal*, but that it would be easier or harder to hit with your weapon, depending on the range you were at?

Say, for instance, something like...
{table=head]range | light weapons | 1-h weapons | 2-h weapons| reach weapons
grapple|+2|--|--|--
close|+2|+2|+0|--
mid|+0|+2|+2|+0
far|--|+0|+2|+2
extreme|--|--|--|+2[/table]

The hard part would be defining the ranges beyond grapple.

* Maybe ranging to 1d4 to 1d8, with higher crit ranges and multipliers? I would also assume that hp would be lower.

Matthew
2008-03-04, 03:42 PM
My understanding is that the most effective tactic against a mounted knight in very heavy armor was to kill the horse, then penetrate a weak point in the knight's armor while he was down (such as a stiletto or other thin dagger through the eye-slits, or under the armpit, in the gap between the leg armor and the groin, etc).

There are numerous anti-cavalry weapons that were specifically designed to attack the horse. For instance, the Chinese Horse Knife, also known as the Horse-cutting Knife. Arguably, pikes would be used against the horse instead of the rider when a formation faced a cavalry charge. That was certainly the case when Alexander's forces faced Darius's scythe-chariots (though apparently the horses would typically stop before running onto the spears), which then allowed other, more lightly armed soldiers to overwhelm the charioteers.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am not an expert, and I welcome evidence that contradicts what I say. Please don't just tell me I'm wrong, I'm way too stubborn to be convinced by that. Evidence is necessary.

Hmmn. The problem is that, in terms of precise evidence, there is no more to support your view than contradict it that I can think of. A cavalry charge into a wall of actual steady infantry is thought to have usually ended in failure and was not a common ancient or medieval military tactic. The evidence for this, though, comes from all over the place.

Certainly, getting a Knight in full harness off his horse, disabling him and striking him in vulnerable areas would be an effective way to kill him. However, the difficulty of doing this is very questionable. Mostly the evidence comes from Agincout, where disabled French Knights were killed by English Archers with 'long knives' and 'heavy hammers', but that was not the purpose of the Archers. They were just taking advantage of a bad situation.

The proliferation of two handed Pole Arms in the late medieval period, when we see a greater degree of body armour (and remember, not everyone on the battlefield likely had access of a full harness) suggests the possibility that these were expected to penetrate or impact armoured opponents with sufficient force to disable them.

To put it another way, you don't suddenly see an emphasis on dismounting knights and wrestling them to the ground on the late medieval battlefield. That said, one of the most desirable outcomes of a battle was the acquiring of many noble prisoners to ransom back to their families, so it's not like killing them was usually top priority either (not to mention the value of acquiring their horses). I often wonder how many just collapsed from exhaustion.

I suppose this discussion is eally better placed in the real World Weapons and Armour Thread.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-03-04, 04:39 PM
Dan, If I am understanding you correctly, you feel that weapon damage should be roughly equal*, but that it would be easier or harder to hit with your weapon, depending on the range you were at?


More or less, and incidentally that's roughly how the games I mention above (Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel) do it.

Rather than to-hit penalties, I might just allow the people with reach to make an AoO against an opponent with a shorter weapon. I'd probably normalize weapon damage to a single dice type, with two handed weapons keeping their 1.5x strength bonus.

Of course in practice when you're houseruling a system that much, I'd be inclined to just design a whole new system from the ground up.