Why is bigger always better?

Zelda Themelin

First Post
Big weapons are very visual. Back in second editon days of D&D and before that smaller weapon had better (aka faster) speed to hit. This actually made them better weapons to use in some situations. Besides they didn't take so much room to use. These things got taken away by later editions and weapon value came to be just it's damage number and curiously with reach rules, the biggest weapons become even more fast to use.


I think effectiviness of smaller weapons was always counted with rogue/thieves' ability to sneak attack. That made those dagger and other smaller weapons more dangerous, systemwise.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mishihari Lord

First Post
A big hole in a person's body will kill them. It doesn't much matter what made it. Weapon size, however, makes a difference in how easy it is to make that hole. If you have reach on the other guy he's going to be mostly defending and will have a harder trying to carry out an attack. A heavier or longer weapon will have more momentum, which is important if you're trying to penetrate armor with an axe or awl. Mass is also important in parrying. It's really hard to parry a sword swing with a dagger due to the difference in mass.

If you look at physiology, a bigger weapon is going to make a bigger hole. If you get a head shot or a heart shot this doesn't matter. A broadsword or a dagger will both kill. A hit on a limb is another matter. A poignard will make a puncture which will hurt but is unlikely to be immediately lethal. A longsword will take the arm off and the opponent will bleed out within seconds.

History shows that bigger weapons are more effective. Consider the evolution of the lance, the pike, and the zweihander. People did use shorter weapons too, but only when there was a compelling reason no to use a big one. Daggers are concealable, and it's a whole lot more convenient to wear a sword on your belt than a halberd.

For a lot of reasons, it's pretty obvious that bigger is usually better.
 

Kzach

Banned
Banned
But check out the trailer for Ironclad. How many knives can do what they've got swords doing in there?

I just finished watching that (actually, I fast-forwarded the last forty or so minutes 'cause it was so bleh) and it was one of the reasons I posted this as it got me to thinking about how he was wielding it (more like a spear than a sword in most instances) and how that related to D&D weapons.

Having said that... it's a movie.

#2: As JRRNeiklot noted above, not many daggers on the field of battle in real history.

Err... yes there were. It was mandatory equipment for a knight. Close-quarters fighting for foot soldiers almost required using small stabbing weapons since you couldn't slash effectively. It's one of the reasons the gladius was such a successful weapon as it was really just an oversized dagger.

#3: Daggers may be dangerous, but there are plenty of stories of guys getting stabbed dozens of times and living. There aren't many stories of guys surviving 12+ direct hits from a katana. Daggers don't have a lot of immediate stopping power, and they have poor reach. Especially when fighting non-human opponents. In a hypothetical situation where I'm fighting an enraged rhino (or an ogre), I'd rather have a sword or a spear. A dagger is only going to tickle it. Going historical again, you didn't go boar-hunting with a knife (generally speaking).
There are plenty of stories are there?

I'm sorry but I think you need to step away from the Hollywood movie propaganda. People do not survive multiple stab wounds from knives unless they are EXTREMELY lucky. And if you're going to factor in luck, then the same applies to being cut or shot or any other sort of injury.

Looking at your whole paragraph it's clear that you don't understand how fragile people are and that you have subscribed to the Hollywood BS machine. Getting cut or stabbed just once, pretty much anywhere, is enough to put 99% of people on the floor in agony. And even just that wound is likely to kill most people as well unless they're exceptionally lucky for it to have missed any major organs or arteries/veins. And even then, whatever muscle it went into, if it was a limb you can consider that limb useless for a good couple of months afterwards. If you're stabbed anywhere in the gut or the torso, you're pretty much dead.

Of course, this assumes that a stab wound penetrates more than at least about an inch. Otherwise it's not really a stab wound and more of an ouchie.
 

JRRNeiklot

First Post
Sounds to me like you're the one drinking the Kool Aid. The human body is not quite as fragile as you seem to believe. A cursory 5 minute internet search brought up several news stories about people surviving as many as 30 stab wounds, including an 18 month old baby who had been stabbed 10 times. I'd link them, but the accounts are fairly graphic.
 

Quickleaf

Legend
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.
Geez, if you're going there, what about walking away from 40' falls? Last time I fell that distance was jumping into a lake, and I still got a bad wedgie. :confused:

Take daggers as a for instance.
A good choice. There's a reason all the fighting texts from the 1400s include unarmed combat and knife fighting techniques.

Daggers and knives are exceptionally lethal weapons used throughout history and across vastly disparate cultures because they are just so damned effective.
I believe you are referring to machete type blades ranging from 30-60 cm (12-24 in)? My impression is that's the larger end of what we'd call a "dagger" yet on the smaller end of the "short sword" range. Technicality.

And yet, they are always at the bottom of the lists in terms of damage output.
Going along with "it's not the blade, but how you use it":

In 4th edition base damage for a greatsword wielding fighter is 1d10.

Base damage for a dagger wielding rogue with sneak attack is 3d4.

Rogue with a dagger is more dangerous when exploiting the clumsy fighter's swings. Voila.

This has, in turn, lead to 'superior' weapons being ridiculously large and unwieldy to the point of ineffectiveness. I give you the fullblade as a primary culprit. 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. And yet here we are, with it being one of THE premier weapons of the system.
You must be hanging around escrima guys - the things they can do with sticks, let alone knives. Wow.

If the fullblade is in the 10-12 pound range I think it qualifies as a parade sword which was not historically used in combat. Maybe it makes sense then that it's an exotic weapon?

As far as the efficacy of a greatsword - it's a common misconception that they were unwieldy and only used as brute weapons. It's true they were brutal, but not just at hacking the tops off pikes or heads off horses. Greatswords were well-balanced and usually had a large ricasso to allow the blade to be gripped below the quillons and thus wielded more efficiently in close combat. Additionally, many had parrying hooks with which to bind incoming attacks, compensating in part for the greatsword's slow defense.

It's true, in cramped quarters - pressed against multiple foes in a shield wall or in a tight passage - a greatsword would be useless against a dagger.

However, greatswords were historically used to fight at the periphery of the battle by extremely large men, where they could use mobility to their advantage. Daggers were common backup weapons and there are explicit moves in fighting texts for greatsword wielders to face dagger wielders (and vice versa). There's a reason why greatsword-wielding mercenaries were still successful into the 16th century.

In close combat, greatswords weren't used as commonly shown in Conan or Braveheart with wide slashing blows. Certainly that was one move, but a greatsword fighter would incorporate piercing lunges, polearm-type maneuvers, and pommel/grab/trip/disarm attacks. Some masters would incorporate Austrian wrestling when teaching greatsword fighters. Many moves became "counter-cuts" combining offense with defense. It wasn't uncommon for greatswords to be sharpened razor sharp on the tope 1/3, chisel sharp on the middle 1/3, and dull on the bottom 1/3, allowing it to be used in "half sword" and "mordhau" grips.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNZGtz9OQG0&feature=related]‪Swordfight‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


That's my long-winded way of saying, in trained hands a weapon is capable of taking life no matter its size.
 

Wik

First Post
There are plenty of stories are there?

I'm sorry but I think you need to step away from the Hollywood movie propaganda. People do not survive multiple stab wounds from knives unless they are EXTREMELY lucky. And if you're going to factor in luck, then the same applies to being cut or shot or any other sort of injury.

I'm gonna stop you right there.

I don't really know enough about medieval weapons on the battlefield to argue those points with you. But I do know enough to tell you that you're flat out wrong here. I say this as someone with a fairly high degree of first aid training (basically, I have enough training to work as an entry-level paramedic).

Knives, blades, and even bullets are not necessarily that deadly. If they hit an artery or pierce an organ, you might be in trouble, but generally, the surface area of the blade is such that if you survive the shock from the initial impact, you'll be fine.

A knife is much less likely to, say, pierce past your ribs and put a hole in your lung than, say, a spear. Or a bullet. In fact, my father has been stabbed in the chest, and kept on fighting in the bar fight he was in. The blade couldn't penetrate the wall of fat that most human males have (it's almost an inch thick in many areas).

Getting cut or stabbed just once, pretty much anywhere, is enough to put 99% of people on the floor in agony.

Nope. When you are in a stressful situation, even very painful wounds are seldom felt due to the painkilling effects of adrenaline. Another fun story. My grandfather, in the second world war, was off the line. He was talking to some buddies while they cooked dinner and chopped firewood, when suddenly a german grenade was hucked in.

My grandfather ducked behind a woodpile when it went off, less than three feet away. His two friends were killed instantly. My grandfather thought he was unharmed, grabbed his Bren gun, and ran outside to kill the German who had crept up on him. When the german was dead, he got help for his friends. It was then that he realized his entire back had been punctured with shrapnel from the grenade. Something like thirty pieces were implanted in his back, and were never removed.

Or, personal experience, I was in a car accident and had my left hand rather seriously mangled up (as in, you could see bone). Did I feel a thing? Nope. I was too busy looking after my best friend, who had been slightly injured. I didn't even get any painkillers until a few hours after the accident, when I began to feel things.

The human body is remarkably tough.

And even just that wound is likely to kill most people as well unless they're exceptionally lucky for it to have missed any major organs or arteries/veins. And even then, whatever muscle it went into, if it was a limb you can consider that limb useless for a good couple of months afterwards. If you're stabbed anywhere in the gut or the torso, you're pretty much dead.

There is one major artery in the leg that, if severed, is probably gonna kill you (the femoral artery). If your jugular is sliced, you're probably dead. An aortic rupture will kill you within three seconds. However, failing any of those arteries or veins getting sliced, and you're golden - and they're positioned in places where, generally, they're hard to get to (almost like we were evolved to be tough little buggers).

There's a thick layer of fat that makes piercing the gut difficult. Most organs can take being pierced, too! I know people that have survived lung punctures (tension pneumothoraxes). As I've mentioned before, my father WAS stabbed. In the torso. And he didn't even get the wound fixed until a few hours later, and was out drinking the next night (oh, sailors...)

Another fun story. During my final exams for my first aid qualification, I was given a scenario I had to enact with a "patient" and everything. All the stats I were given were based off a real event. My "patient" had fallen onto a piece of rebar, and had the bar go right through his abdomen.

This was based off a real case. Guess what? My patient had no signs of shock, only minor bleeding, and my biggest worry actually had nothing to do with the puncture, and everything to do with maintaining C-Spine and checking for spinal cord injuries.

True story.

[/quote]Of course, this assumes that a stab wound penetrates more than at least about an inch. Otherwise it's not really a stab wound and more of an ouchie.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, but I'd say it's even more than an inch, due to the fact that your subcutaneous fat in most areas is around an inch. Unless it's hitting bone, in which case, you're lucky anyways.

***

That's not to say that knives aren't dangerous. They are. But bigger blades are, generally, more dangerous, because the blade has a larger surface area. Meaning it's more likely to hit an artery that will bleed like crazy. Or if it pierces, it will pierce deeper and get more of the organ.

Also, the gladius was dangerous only when used in formation. the short blade existed because the formation was tightly packed. In single combat, the gladius was less useful, which was one of the reasons everyone tried to break up the formation before charging in.

If shorter blades were better, Samurai would carry tiny little knives and not Katana as their main weapon. Knights would charge into battle with their dirks rather than use their swords. And highlanders would be going around beheading one another with swiss army knives.
 

Pentius

First Post
Sounds to me like you're the one drinking the Kool Aid. The human body is not quite as fragile as you seem to believe. A cursory 5 minute internet search brought up several news stories about people surviving as many as 30 stab wounds, including an 18 month old baby who had been stabbed 10 times. I'd link them, but the accounts are fairly graphic.

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.
 

Kzach

Banned
Banned
I say this as someone with a fairly high degree of first aid training (basically, I have enough training to work as an entry-level paramedic).

So have I.

I was a St. John's First Aid Ambulance Cadet (think Scouts but with a focus on first aid) and worked several fairs, markets and even a few Melbourne Show's and Moomba's. I have also maintained the highest level of first aid training you can get as a certificate in my country, since that time.

I still wouldn't claim to be an expert, though; that I'll leave to an emergency ward doctor. Don't suppose we have any here?

On another matter, the gladius was not only used in formation. It was both a piercing and slashing weapon and performed remarkably well in both roles because of it's weight, length and blade design. And contrary to romantic and popular belief, most knights wielded light maces and hammers from horseback, not swords.

As for samurai, well they were poseurs. I know that's not the de rigueur stance amongst geeks who worship at the altar of Japanese culture as the be-all and end-all, but hey, someone's gotta stand up for reality.
 

Bagpuss

Legend
#2: As JRRNeiklot noted above, not many daggers on the field of battle in real history.

Actually that's incorrect, virtually everyone carried a dagger on the field of battle. Even fully armoured knights that carried greatswords would have one. Mainly because even a greatsword would most likely not cut through full plate armour, but you could bludgeon your opponent to the ground with it, who you would then finish off with a dagger through the visor or other gap in the armour.

Check this out from about 4:58
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qmPwEmehU[/ame]

Heck even in the still you can see how small the mace a knight would use in that period was.
 

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.
 

Remove ads

Top