D&D 5E Mike Mearls's Tweets

[Henry]

I wish people would stop saying this. There are actual surviving manuals of medieval martial arts and none of them regard most two-handed weapons as requiring huge space to use, though some will be used in different ways depending on the situation. If you're using a two-handed sword in a narrow space, expect to stab a lot with it. Which to be fair you should do anyway.

Those same manuals even show maneuvers using the freaking GUARD in close quarters battle.

 

[Derren]

I wish people would stop saying this. There are actual surviving manuals of medieval martial arts and none of them regard most two-handed weapons as requiring huge space to use, though some will be used in different ways depending on the situation. If you're using a two-handed sword in a narrow space, expect to stab a lot with it. Which to be fair you should do anyway.

And still, in confined spaces two handed weapons were less effective then when you had room to use them to their full potential.

 

[Argyle King]

Don't compare yourself to children but to, for example, a body builder way stronger than you. Both of you can cut flesh easily. Do you really think that he can somehow do more damage with a knife than you?

With a knife, the threshold for how much more damage can be applied is probably low since (many) knives are small and don't have as much leverage through which to increase damage. If you take that pointy end and place at the end of a stick to create a spear, yes, I do believe the body builder can do more damage with the spear than I can. However, the difference might not be as noticeable with a thrusting weapon. With a weapon designed for swinging attacks like an axe, club, or war pick, the difference is going to be more noticeable.

 

[Iosue]

And still, in confined spaces two handed weapons were less effective then when you had room to use them to their full potential.

If you're defining "full potential" to be "able to make huge swings", as it seems many folks are, then yes. I daresay, however, that for those of us with experience in historical two-handed weapon fighting, huge swings powered by our arm muscles play very little part in our study.

To the experienced practitioner, utilizing the full potential of a two-handed sword means making cuts no wider than your own body. It means generating power by engaging the legs and hips, and using as little local arm muscle as possible, enabling rapid attacks and responses. It means on occasion taking hold of the blade (yes, there are techniques for this in both Western and Eastern historical martial arts) for close quarters work. It means doing maximum damage by targeting the arteries, not trying to hack a guy in two. The full potential of the two-handed weapon is fulfilled by making the other guy dead, and whether in wide open spaces, or a narrow hallway, the two-handed weapon offers many ways to do that.

 

[El Mahdi]

Eh... I have to disagree.

I can easily cut through a tough steak with a knife. My children --even if using the same knife-- cannot. If we change the target from a tough steak to an adversary during combat, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm capable of doing more damage with a knife thrust than one of my children are able to with the same knife and same attack.

Also, it's worth noting that what many weapons are designed to do is act as a lever --which does increase the amount of strength/damage generated from a swing. While that means the weapon is amplifying what the user can do, the amount of strength I start with is going to factor into how much damage is amplified. To be fair, there is a point at which a weapon reaches a limit and cannot do anymore; there's only so much force that a dagger or sword can carry, and --beyond a certain point-- more strength will not help any more. However, to say that more strength has no value at all is something I believe to be a false statement.

You can test this very easily. Ask a 5 year old to hit you with a baseball bat. Then ask an adult to do the same. It is my belief that the latter is going to cause more damage.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say it like this: once a minimum necessary strength is met, any extra strength does not provide an increase to damage. It's the weapon itself and the technique behind the strike that determines the effectiveness of the attack. As I stated earlier, the amount of damage from a sword strike by a trained attacker with 10 strength is going to be virtually the same as an attacker with 20 strength. They are both equally able to impale a target or sever a limb. Watch videos of people doing test cuts with swords and you'll notice that it really deosn't take a significant amount of strength to cut through an animal carcass (like a deer). It's much more about proper technique (proper draw during the cut, proper grip on the weapon, and proper cut angle to keep the blade from flexing during the cut).

It is true though, that a five year old child likely cannot cut through a deer carcass...even with proper technique. But an average strength man is going to be just as able to cut through the carcass as an NFL Linebacker...and in some instances may even be easier. The NFL Linebacker, if not practiced in proper technique, may try to rely on strength to perform the cut, and find that focusing on strength can actually be counterproductive to the attempt. And a Linebacker practiced in proper technique would find that his extra strength is wasted on the target. Like you said, a weapon can only amplify so much strength...there is a limit. To accurately model that, you'd need to list a strength modifier limit for each and every weapon. I believe that would be something that would overly complicate matters far too much.

However, the attacker with higher strength can wield bigger weapons easier, and can overcome a defenders blocks, defenses, and armor easier than someone with lesser strength.

Thus, a bonus to attacks for higher strength make sense, where a bonus to damage does not. And such a mechanic is far easier and simple, while being more realistic, than the alternatives.

 

[Derren]

If you're defining "full potential" to be "able to make huge swings", as it seems many folks are, then yes. I daresay, however, that for those of us with experience in historical two-handed weapon fighting, huge swings powered by our arm muscles play very little part in our study.

To the experienced practitioner, utilizing the full potential of a two-handed sword means making cuts no wider than your own body. It means generating power by engaging the legs and hips, and using as little local arm muscle as possible, enabling rapid attacks and responses. It means on occasion taking hold of the blade (yes, there are techniques for this in both Western and Eastern historical martial arts) for close quarters work. It means doing maximum damage by targeting the arteries, not trying to hack a guy in two. The full potential of the two-handed weapon is fulfilled by making the other guy dead, and whether in wide open spaces, or a narrow hallway, the two-handed weapon offers many ways to do that.

Okay, you win. A two handed sword is not penalized in any way when for example you are in a corridor barely wider than you are and with a ceiling so low that you nearly have to crouch a little or when you are in a tight formation. Two handed swords > everything, all the time.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Okay, you win. A two handed sword is not penalized in any way when for example you are in a corridor barely wider than you are and with a ceiling so low that you nearly have to crouch a little or when you are in a tight formation. Two handed swords > everything, all the time.

At that point every weapon starts having problems, and a half-sworded two-handed sword would still be potentially more effective than a shortsword.

 

[El Mahdi]

At that point every weapon starts having problems, and a half-sworded two-handed sword would still be potentially more effective than a shortsword.

Effective? Yes.


More effective?

You've shown no such evidence that this is true. Nor has anyone else, so...No.

 

[Argyle King]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say it like this: once a minimum necessary strength is met, any extra strength does not provide an increase to damage. It's the weapon itself and the technique behind the strike that determines the effectiveness of the attack. As I stated earlier, the amount of damage from a sword strike by a trained attacker with 10 strength is going to be virtually the same as an attacker with 20 strength. They are both equally able to impale a target or sever a limb. Watch videos of people doing test cuts with swords and you'll notice that it really deosn't take a significant amount of strength to cut through an animal carcass (like a deer). It's much more about proper technique (proper draw during the cut, proper grip on the weapon, and proper cut angle to keep the blade from flexing during the cut).

It is true though, that a five year old child likely cannot cut through a deer carcass...even with proper technique. But an average strength man is going to be just as able to cut through the carcass as an NFL Linebacker...and in some instances may even be easier. The NFL Linebacker, if not practiced in proper technique, may try to rely on strength to perform the cut, and find that focusing on strength can actually be counterproductive to the attempt. And a Linebacker practiced in proper technique would find that his extra strength is wasted on the target. Like you said, a weapon can only amplify so much strength...there is a limit. To accurately model that, you'd need to list a strength modifier limit for each and every weapon. I believe that would be something that would overly complicate matters far too much.

However, the attacker with higher strength can wield bigger weapons easier, and can overcome a defenders blocks, defenses, and armor easier than someone with lesser strength.

Thus, a bonus to attacks for higher strength make sense, where a bonus to damage does not. And such a mechanic is far easier and simple, while being more realistic, than the alternatives.

You are right, and I agree there is a point beyond which more strength does not help. However, more strength does help.

Also, it is important to note that measuring killing power isn't necessarily the same thing as measuring damage. While it may be true that my ability to cut through a limb and kill is that same as that of someone else with greater or lesser strength, that does not mean I am doing the same amount of damage in relation to the structural integrity of the overall body. Killing someone doesn't necessarily mean you've destroyed their body and/or have done more damage to it overall. A meatbag with a few minor cuts and abrasions is going to be far more valuable as an improvised shield than one which has been tenderized and pummeled by a giant's club.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Effective? Yes.


More effective?

You've shown no such evidence that this is true. Nor has anyone else, so...No.

Considering that what D&D traditionally considers a shortsword has a 1 to 2 foot blade and a true two-handed sword has a 4 and 1/2 foot blade, a half-sworded two-handed sword would have between 6" to 2 feet greater reach than a shortsword in confined spaces.