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

[William drake]

No, not quite, since an elephant has more hit points to begin with. So you'll do more damage to the elephant but less damage relative to its size and power.

And I don't have my books at hand but I'm fairly certain that an elephant has a lower armor class than a horse.

Did you read my post...

 

[William drake]

which is reflected in the increased HD and therefore hps the target has.

a normal human in 1edADnD had 1d6 hps.
a normal Hill Giant in 1edADnD had 8d8 + 1-2hps

a trained human had class levels.

a trained Hill Giant... got more HD and hps too. Chief or Subchief or Witchdoctor or Shaman or ... whatever the DM concocted.

I agree with, "its biger, it has more HP" not talking about that, my point is that somehow it means that you do more damage...when damage is based on size and strength.

I could attack a giant, and cut it across the side, however, since I'm so small, my attack is not really that serious in the giant's opinion: my two foot gash, to the giant's eight foot wide chest, has been turned from a mortal wound, into a dager's slash and not a broardswrod's slash. And it takes alot more of my attacks to bring it down.

Yes, I may hit it more because its bigger, but I'm really not doing more damge...I'm doing less.

The point of this blog was that attack by attacking bigger creatures you do more damage..and I think thats wrong.

 

[tx7321]

The point of this blog was that attack by attacking bigger creatures you do more damage..and I think thats wrong.

There are 3 reasons this is done: 1. for game interest (which improves the fun of the game),
2. Logically: bigger weapons do greater damage in general then smaller. Against larger opponents they even have a larger advantage (relative to smaller weapons) this is esp. true with edged and pointed weapons. Where a dagger might not even penetrate the outer layer of skin of an elephant, a helbird might penetrate down to its vitals. Thus it does a greater % of damage compared to other weapons, 3. for game design. Players choosing weapons help define personality.

 

[DaveyJones]

I agree with, "its biger, it has more HP" not talking about that, my point is that somehow it means that you do more damage...when damage is based on size and strength.

I could attack a giant, and cut it across the side, however, since I'm so small, my attack is not really that serious in the giant's opinion: my two foot gash, to the giant's eight foot wide chest, has been turned from a mortal wound, into a dager's slash and not a broardswrod's slash. And it takes alot more of my attacks to bring it down.

Yes, I may hit it more because its bigger, but I'm really not doing more damge...I'm doing less.

The point of this blog was that attack by attacking bigger creatures you do more damage..and I think thats wrong.

you are talking about AC too in your proposed explanation.

in 1edADnD they had weapon vs armor type too.

if you look back early in this thread you'll see that there are many reasons. not one. not two. not even three. (although tx7321 does pretty good). you can only get reality and the game to match as well as can be explained in the game. after that you just play the game like green slime is saying.

sometimes the answer to why things work is "that's the way it does for this game". but that doesn't mean you can't tinker with the way it does. it just means you are getting into an area where you are gonna have more tinkering to do. thus why we have newer editions.

 

[dcas]

Did you read my post...

'Deed I did.

The elephant's superior toughness (when compared to a horse) is reflected in its lower armor class and greater number of hit points. It does not follow that it would not take more damage (but less damage relative to its total number of hit points) from a sword than a horse would.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Perhaps I should have said two handed sword.

But the point is that the justifications aren't consistent across individual weapons.

 

[cattoy]

so, if the argument runs that big weapons do more damage against big targets because there's more meat to get cut, then why don't they do less damage against small targets?

 

[T. Foster]

I agree with, "its biger, it has more HP" not talking about that, my point is that somehow it means that you do more damage...when damage is based on size and strength.

I could attack a giant, and cut it across the side, however, since I'm so small, my attack is not really that serious in the giant's opinion: my two foot gash, to the giant's eight foot wide chest, has been turned from a mortal wound, into a dager's slash and not a broardswrod's slash. And it takes alot more of my attacks to bring it down.

Yes, I may hit it more because its bigger, but I'm really not doing more damge...I'm doing less.

The point of this blog was that attack by attacking bigger creatures you do more damage..and I think thats wrong.

This post makes no sense. What you're talking about is reflected entirely in the fact that larger creatures have more hp. An 8-point slash from a longsword is a mortal wound to an average human with 5 hp; to a giant with 38 hp the same slash does less than a quarter of his hp -- the equaivalent to the human suffering a 1 or 2 hp dagger-slash. The increased damage by certain weapons against large-sized opponents reflects the fact that a large weapon, like a two-handed sword, might be able to inflict significant damage on a giant -- up to 18 points, almost half the giant's total hp, as if a human had suffered 2 or 3 points from a dagger-thrust.

The idea of a sword doing literal (as opposed to equivalent) dagger-damage against a giant would only make sense if the giant had the same hp as a human, but he doesn't, he has a lot more.

 

[T. Foster]

so, if the argument runs that big weapons do more damage against big targets because there's more meat to get cut, then why don't they do less damage against small targets?

The real reason is that the damage values in OD&D Supplement I were against "man-sized opponents" and "larger opponents," based on damage against men and damage against horses (blunt weapons and small weapons (daggers, hand axes) are generally less effective against horses than men; large slashing and piercing weapons (pole arms, pikes, lances, two-handed swords) are able to inflict more damage against horses, by penetrating further or making larger slashes). Why they didn't assign a separate damage value to smaller than man-sized creatures is probably twofold: 1) lack of real-world data on how effective various types of weapons are against 2' tall sprites and 3' tall kobolds, and 2) a general notion that this would overcomplicate the game without adding anything of value (which is almost certainyl correct -- look at this thread to see how much people dislike having two separate damage values, imagine how much more they'd complain if there were 3...).

 

[jdrakeh]

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).

Note that in many states, softpoint rifle rounds and other lead shot is frowned upon (and sometimes illegal) when hunting certain animals, as it poses a possible contamination hazard. For instance, in Kansas, hunting ducks with anything other than steel shot is verboten (or was, last I checked) as soft lead shot was supposedly contaminating natural water sources. I can recall the fits that this gave a few friends of mine when the law was passed.

[Edit: Oops. I misread your post ]