Why is bigger always better?

[Neonchameleon]

I'd like to break this down into two parts:

1) In the real world can a dagger be just as deadly as a greatsword? I think the answer is yes it can. Hit the right spot on person with a sharp blade no matter how big the blade is and that person will die.

And a syringe full of air can be utterly lethal.

2) In an rpg is it a good idea to make a dagger just as deadly as a greatsword? I think the answer is not really. Unless you want to get into the granularity of weapon vs. weapon, weapon vs. armor, weapon vs. size of creature and so on the details of this will just bog down the game and the role-playing. You can still create options that improve the daggers effectiveness in combat and make it an interesting choice for a character without making that character useless.

Indeed. But a dagger was a third rate battlefield and duelling weapon. You need to make longer weapons faster for one thing (yes, I'm serious. Reach means you hit first, and a flick of the wrist on a sword can move it very far). And probably go down to Gurps-granularity. Also you need to take into account that the best way to parry a dagger with a sword is at the wrist - the hand needing to move that much further from the dagger wielder than the swordsman.

 

[mmadsen]

One of the things that has always bothered me about D&D and many other systems I've delved into, is the pervading assumption that bigger weapons do more damage. Reality seems to contradict this assumption.

You're right that realistic combat should treat daggers as deadly, but they're not as deadly as larger swords and spears. One dagger thrust can kill a man almost immediately, but it's unusual. One greatsword hit, on the other hand, is almost guaranteed to end the fight.

In a game like D&D, the "problem" is that it's easy to hit someone but hard to really hurt them when you do hit -- the opposite of reality -- so "damage" (whatever that means) becomes inordinately important.

 

[Naszir]

I'd still wish D&D would get away from the "hit" term. It may be semantics but it makes more sense (to me) if your character makes an attack and you roll well the attack is a "success" rather than a "hit". The "hit" term and asking people to take hit points as abstact doesn't mesh very well.

 

[Janx]

And a syringe full of air can be utterly lethal.
.

per medical people I talked to, that's not accurate. I asked about it regarding the IV tube and the big block of air that goes down it when they change the bag and how scary that looks when you know this 'fact". Turns out, it would need to be a LOT of air, not a syringe full.

Indeed. But a dagger was a third rate battlefield and duelling weapon. You need to make longer weapons faster for one thing (yes, I'm serious. Reach means you hit first, and a flick of the wrist on a sword can move it very far). And probably go down to Gurps-granularity. Also you need to take into account that the best way to parry a dagger with a sword is at the wrist - the hand needing to move that much further from the dagger wielder than the swordsman.

This is why rapiers and cut-and-thrust swords evolved. Light weight, and long reach. Plus, duelers would also carry a dagger or a buckler.

It's not like daggers are useless. Or even that I wouldn't have a dagger on me for that duel with EW in the phone booth (I always have a knife on me, even right now, and certainly in a D&D game).

It's simply that when you are in the environment suited for the big weapon, the dagger is disadvantaged. A sword in the hands of an idiot in a house at night versus a guy with a knife who might know how to use it is "not the environment for a big weapon"

 

[Greg K]

All I know is what I have read or been told by people people that have been in knife fights on the street and instructors for both LAPDs CRASH anti-gang unit and/or the military/special forces

1. Unless the guy hits an artery, you can survive several cuts even if they are painful. However, pain is something most people can be trained to ignore and is, often masked by adrenaline (as evident by recounts from people in this thread).
2. You don't want to get stabbed. Not only is that how you reach vital organs, but shock becomes a factor.
3. You don't want to fight someone with a knife if you don't have to. Unskilled old ladies can get lucky and a skilled knife fighter is outright deadly.
4. Get away as soon as possible. People can be dealt lethal wounds and keep fighting long enough to kill their opponent. My martial instructor, who is a bodyguard and has also taught defense techniques for CRASH, told us during our introduction to knives about a fight he witnessed while still in his teens. He watched a friend stab a guy in a vital area. The stabbed person remained on his feet and kept fighting. Rather than run, his friend stayed and was killed before his opponent stopped fighting and died himself.

 

[Dausuul]

The whole point of a bigger weapon is to accomplish one of two things: More reach or more damage. There is no other advantage to a big weapon. Small weapons are lighter, faster, and cheaper. If big weapons did not do more damage and/or reach farther, all wars would be fought with daggers and derringers.

Try using a knife against a trained swordsman, with a sword, not in close quarters. See how long you last.

 

[MrMyth]

There is simply no way that this weapon would be used by any sane person either on a battlefield or in single-combat. A knife wielder would kill them before they'd have even drawn the thing.

I'm not sure how true that is. It probably is an absurdly oversized weapon for most folks - which is somewhat mitigated in D&D, where characters routinely have strength scores that are effectively superhuman, meaning that wielding such a ridiculously heavy weapon is actually possible.

Sure, you can kill someone with a dagger, but the idea that it has the edge on a battlefield... not sure I buy it. Reach counts for a lot - something D&D only vaguely addresses. What is true is that a hit from a big heavy sword will usually do much more damage than being stabbed by a dagger. What is also true is that, for most people, that difference doesn't really matter - a dagger in the neck will kill them just as dead as being fully decapitated by a greataxe.

But again - in D&D, all these elements get abstracted into the damage/hitpoint/etc system. Honestly, you just aren't going to get a satisfactory version of what you want without adding, like, seventeen new combat subsystems to more accurately reflect reach, pinpoint accuracy, weapon damage, etc. Stuff like effects vs different kinds of armor, like we used to have. Add in enough of that, and you'll have situations where the dagger is superior, perhaps - but for myself, I don't think that it is worth it. The current abstraction fits me well, and you can have effective dagger wielders, and that's good enough for me.

 

[Umbran]

One of the things that has always bothered me about D&D and many other systems I've delved into, is the pervading assumption that bigger weapons do more damage. Reality seems to contradict this assumption.

Does it?

Think, for a moment - do you think Medieval and Renaissance generals and soldiers equipped based upon some theory, or upon the practice of hundreds of years of warfare?

Real battlefields are the ultimate in Darwinian scenarios for real-world weaponry. Given how many have lived and died by weapon and armor choice, it would seem these are the best available source for empirical data on the effectiveness of weapons and armors.

On a real battlefield, a dagger is extremely useful - for when you've dropped that guy in heavy armor to the ground, and need something to stick between the joints between plates when he's down. Otherwise, not so useful.

 

[Argyle King]

The real reason:

Hit Points and an overall abstract combat system. Thats pretty much it.

Try a system that simulates actual wounds a bit such as GURPS and knives become pretty effective, especially against unarmored opponents.

+1

D&D weapons work the way they do because it's D&D.

In other systems (GURPS is an excellent example,) there's far more detail put into the weapon system because it's meant to be less abstract.

I totally buy that there are news stories about people surviving a lot of stab wounds. But those are only on the news because surviving 30 stab wounds from a serious attacker is a rare occurrence. Stabbing with sharp, smallish pointy things is still a common form of murder. Murders via spear or katana? Not so much, these days, so I'm not surprised that there aren't a bunch of stories around about people surviving 12 katana wounds.

I suspect part of the reason is also because it's a lot easier to conceal a knife than it is to conceal a spear. Likewise, if the police happen to notice you, it's a lot easier to explain having a knife on your person than it is to explain why you're carrying around a kilij sword, katana, wahammer, or spear.

 

[Ravilah]

A typical peasant, bartender, blacksmith, or marquis in Dnd-land has fewer than 10 HP (or maybe just one if it's 4e). Often no more than 4. That being the case, the difference in weapon damage among most people in the universe is inconsequential; it's all able to kill them in a stroke or two.

And among adventurers, before long, the damage die stops being the important part of your damage equation. By level 7, I don't care so much that my sword does 1d8 damage; I care that it does 1d8+12! (Or for 4e: that it does 1d8, slides the ogre 3 squares, gives me a healing surge, and allows the dwarf a saving throw).

It's not size that matters, but what comes after the + that counts!