Weapons doing greater damage to Large Sized Creatures...why?

Once I was told the reason why 1st and 2nd Edition weapons do greater damage to Large Creatures, but I have forgotten. Would somebody please refresh my memory?

I can see the logic in that large creatures have larger vital organs than medium sized creatures and thus weapons can puncture them better.

Yet this ability to do more damage to large creatures made monster like Ogres less threatening. I remember DMing 2E and describing an Ogre charging toward the party and the first words out of a player's mouth are "Awesome! It's a Large creature! My longsword can do 1d12 instead of 1d8!

Did Col_Pladoh explain his reason in one of the Q&A threads and I missed it?

I'd like to know because I'm thinking of running a 2E game to players who've only played 3E/3.5 and will probably ask that question.

I seem to recall the logic being something like this:

Big monsters are killable, because some weapons do more damage against them.

The same weapons don't do more damage all the time, because that would make low-level (or 0-level) npc-types too fragile.

I don't think it makes much sense... but there you go.

A big creature's vitals are larger, and thus may be easier to hit. That's likely got something to do with it. Also, it's just easier in general to hit big stuff, and older editions didn't have the size-based AC/attack/hide/etc. modifiers of 3E.

I' don't know the official answer, but I suppose that the logic was something like this:

Big weapons do more damage to large creatures because more of the cutting edge is contacting the body of a large creature in a typical hit, just because the target is larger. For example, a two-handed sword blade is around 5' long. a human body can only be hit by a part of the blade at one time. A giant might be hit by the full length of it.

OTOH, a small weapon like a dagger does less damage to a large creature because it can't reach the vitals as easily.

Think of it the same way bullets are made.

Hunters going after deer can use standard bullets because said bullet will be going through (at least) a foot or so muscle, tissue, etc. The shock of the bullet going through that much flesh helps add to the lethality. Using anything else is overkill.


Now look at bullets meant for humans. Talons, hollow point, dum dum rounds, mercury/exploding rounds, tumbling rounds, etc. From front to back the body averages 6 inches at its widest. Bullets need to create as much shock on initial impact as they can, since the bullet will pass through too quickly otherwise to guarantee a fatal hit.


Same with arrows. While hunting, the arrow causes enough damage to allow the animal to bleed out quickly. Arrows doing the same to humans require heads that create greater wounds on impact, for the same reason as the bullet.

Storyteller01 said:

Think of it the same way bullets are made.

Hunters going after deer can use standard bullets because said bullet will be going through (at least) a foot or so muscle, tissue, etc. The shock of the bullet going through that much flesh helps add to the lethality. Using anything else is overkill.


Now look at bullets meant for humans. Talons, hollow point, dum dum rounds, mercury/exploding rounds, tumbling rounds, etc. From front to back the body averages 6 inches at its widest. Bullets need to create as much shock on initial impact as they can, since the bullet will pass through too quickly otherwise to guarantee a fatal hit.

Click to expand...

This is a dramatic oversimplification. You could easily use .22 LR to take out small game, but I wouldn't try to hunt a moose with that! Lethality is going to depend on a lot of things, including powder charge, caliber (both of which translate directly into raw force), penetration of target (which is BAD for hollow points against body armor, for example), and the amount of force that is applied to the target as stated above through expansion or fragmentation.

In any event, the amount of damage done to a large target did not universally go up in 1st Edition AD&D. Looking at the weapon table in the PHB, here is what I find:

Weapon M/L

Arrow, 1-6/1-6
Axe, Hand or Throwing, 1-6/1-4
Bardiche, 2-8/3-12
Dagger, 1-4/1-3
Flail, Footman's, 2-7/2-8
Lance, Heavy Horse, 3-9/3-18

These are just examples. The intent seems to be that some weapons are better against larger targets, while others are worse, and still others change not at all or just barely. I can't really see the logic to all of these. How do you determine that a footman's flail has the potential to do 1 point higher maximum damage vs. a large foe?

A big creature's vitals are larger

Click to expand...

"You're huge! That means you have huge guts! Rip and tear!"

I'm sort of inclined to agree with Storyteller's reasoning. That three feet of sharp steel in your longsword is, to a certain degree, overkill compared to the size of a man-sized creature. "Anything more than a rib-cage's depth is wasted", let's say. But, when you're fighting a giant or a dragon, the full size of the weapon is more likely to be used in a blow.

It's not something I'll miss (come to think of it, I never used that rule at all when playing and running 2nd Ed.), but that's as good a reason as any

I just checked my 1st Ed PHB, and noted that daggers did 1-4 vs Small/Med, and 1-3 vs Large. Perhaps this was to reflect that the smaller weapons could not do more than superficial damage to such meaty monsters.

Nothing official, but I think it had to do with creating a more interesting and complex combat system.
It creates alot of interest for the player (taking this weapon for med. and small and that for large monsters etc. and balancing it vs. weapon speed vs NPCs and also if you can use a shield etc.). When you only start with 3 or 4 weapons it creates an interesting delema. The selection of your starting weapons often suggests the personality and character of the PC.

Of course its also logical. Combat is a minute with many swings/blows assumed. On average some weapons would be able to penetrate deeper past thicker armoring, fat, muscles, bones and reach the vitals more easily then others.

Of course, which weapons were chosen probably had to do as much with "image" and feel as it did with real world logic. Sure a dagger would be more effective vs a kolbold and less so vs an elephant. Just as a .22 and a .50 can both kill a squirrel, but not as likely to be equally effective vs a charging bull elephant.

But the selection of what did what is interesting. Why a 2 handed does 3-18 and a spear only 1-8 (this seems arbitrary), and a battle axe stay the same (while the Short Sword increases)? In AD&D the mental props are very important (just as they are in fiction, think Conan and LOTR for instance). Lets face it, a 2 handed sword is alot "cooler" then a spear.

I'm sure there is also historical evidence certain weapons were used on better armored and larger opponents (and we can assume a larger monster is probably covered in thicker hide or scale, stands higher up (thus more difficult to reach), and of course deeper organs, more fat and muscle etc.

The pointy end goes in the other man.

If he's a giant, you can fit a whole lot more of the pointy end in him

The short answer is that 1 and 2e D&D rules make no sense. Play the game and leave your logic at the door.