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

[diaglo]

....point taken

maybe i was too extreme in sizes, but i got the idea.

so, whats a "large" anyway?
2,10m?

bigger than a bugbear and gnoll.

 

[Delta]

so, whats a "large" anyway?
2,10m?

"'L', larger than man-sized in one way or another and generally having greater mass." (AD&D 1E Monster Manual p. 6).

If you're looking for exact measurements, those didn't exist until 3E.

 

[VirgilCaine]

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.

I'm a gun person and I've never heard anything like this.

Hunters use hollowpoints or softpoints (bullets that expand for greater lethality) to ensure that the prey is killed quickly and cleanly. Using ball or full metal jacket bullets that might not kill the prey in one shot is considered bad sportsmanship (and thus is probably illegal under hunting regulations).

 

[rossik]

i think that bullets that not kill in one shot are for taking 2 people out of action : the one that take the hit, and another to help him!

 

[an_idol_mind]

I asked Gary this very question in August 1983 at WorldCon in Chicago. I was especially interested in knowing why broadswords did less damage versus large as well as why spears do more.

His response was that piercing weapon do more damage versus large and weapons that do not do piercing at all do less damage (club, mace, broadsword, &c.) The rationale was that piercing weapons do not inflict their full potential versus man-sized creatures [visualize that scene in Excalibur when Arthur impales Mordred with a lance]. Bludgeoning weapons do less damage versus large creatures because these creatures have larger and thicker bones and muscles.

I can see the reasoning behind this statement, but I don't think the rules gel terribly well with that logic. If I recall, there were a good number of bludgeoning weapons that did more damage to large-sized creatures, too.

 

[T. Foster]

I can see the reasoning behind this statement, but I don't think the rules gel terribly well with that logic. If I recall, there were a good number of bludgeoning weapons that did more damage to large-sized creatures, too.

There's only a few, they're the biggest weapons of he type (morning star, footman's flail, etc.), and they only do a little more damage (1 or 2 points more). Most bludgeoning weapons (hammer, club, horseman's mance, etc.) do less damage against large opponents. The reasoning probably had something to do with the size of the striking surface and the way the impact is spread out -- a footman's flail's large striking surface inflicts damage over a wider area, thus (perhaps?) making it more effective against a large opponent (such as a horse) than a weapon which concentrates its impact on a smaller area. Or something like that...

FWIW in Chainmail's Man-to-Man combat table (the progenitor of the OD&D/AD&D weapon-vs-AC table) there's a column for weapons vs. horses (actually two columns: one for non-barded horses and one for barded horses) -- a couple weapons (hand axes, maces) are less effective against horses than men, most seem to be about the same, and a few (pole arms, pikes, lances) are more effective against horses than men. I'd guess this column was at least partially the inspiration for the separate damage values against medium vs. large opponents which were added to D&D in Supplement I, at the same time as the weapon vs. AC chart, but that doesn't explain why swords (long and two-handed) are given such a big bonus against large opponents in D&D -- in Chainmail they're both about the same against horses as against men

 

[ruleslawyer]

i think that bullets that not kill in one shot are for taking 2 people out of action : the one that take the hit, and another to help him!

The military rule is, IIRC, three people, actually (one wounded, two assisting); one person usually can't carry a wounded, fully-equipped soldier out of combat.

As to the weapon size stuff: I think that it's been explained away thoroughly earlier in the thread, but I would say that a) this was a really complicated way of doing it, or so I often felt when running AD&D games; and b) the actual individual weapon breakdowns don't always make sense.

 

[green slime]

Why all this insistance on thinking all the time? Grab that d12 and roll it! Enjoy! Fun! Mayhem!

Kill things and take their stuff!

 

[Ulrick]

I asked Gary this very question in August 1983 at WorldCon in Chicago. I was especially interested in knowing why broadswords did less damage versus large as well as why spears do more.

His response was that piercing weapon do more damage versus large and weapons that do not do piercing at all do less damage (club, mace, broadsword, &c.) The rationale was that piercing weapons do not inflict their full potential versus man-sized creatures [visualize that scene in Excalibur when Arthur impales Mordred with a lance]. Bludgeoning weapons do less damage versus large creatures because these creatures have larger and thicker bones and muscles.

Personally I agree completely with piercing weapons doing more. I'm a little ambivalent on the whole bludgeoning weapon doing less. But broadswords should inflict the same for large and man-sized since they are slashing (hacking) weapons rather than bludgeoning.

At any rate, this is an area that’s easy to house rule if you don’t agree with EGG.

That is good explanation. I think I'll just go with it. And if the characters encounter some ogres, the ogres will just sit back and throw rocks or spears at them.

And yes, that is a cool scene in Excalibur...but I thought Mordred did the impaling and then Arthur pulled himself across the lance and plunged Excalibur thru Mordred's chest! And then it took Arthur at least several hours to die (while Perseval ran around trying to find a lake to throw Excalibur in) because the lance's full damage potential was wasted. Mordred should have used a big two-handed sword.

But then again they didn't have two-handed swords in the 5th century, nor did they have full plate armor or halberds...oh wait...it's just movie.

Oh well, I got the idea! And now I want to see that movie again!

Thanks!

 

[Storyteller01]

I'm a gun person and I've never heard anything like this.

Hunters use hollowpoints or softpoints (bullets that expand for greater lethality) to ensure that the prey is killed quickly and cleanly. Using ball or full metal jacket bullets that might not kill the prey in one shot is considered bad sportsmanship (and thus is probably illegal under hunting regulations).

And this was told to me by a gun person whise shot both people and animals (military man who likes to hunt).