RangerWickett
Legend
I get all the history I need from watching LOST.
Why is bigger always better?
I get all the history I need from watching LOST.
Aberzanzorax
Hero
My wife is a doctor and has worked in the ER, but she's not home at the moment.
She has shared stories in which people have been hit with dozens of bullets and survived.
Looking at this with common sense, I think it's fairly obvious that certain parts of the body are more critical than others. Yes, knives, bullets, and swords are all dangerous and deadly (as is a homemade prison shank). However, there's a degree of precision that is important in any attack. I have to be less precise with a handgrenade than a gun and even more precise with a knife if I want to attack to kill.
It's about impossible to cut someone's hand off (at the wrist likely, not through bone) with a knife swing or stab. It's still unlikely with a sword, but not impossible. A battle axe? Increasingly likely. (I like to cook, and I have to say, even cutting through a steak with a knife designed to do so can take some effort...and the steak isn't fighting back. A butcher's cleaver makes the job a lot easier.)
My point is, the larger the weapon, the less necessary it is to use it for precision. Of course, precision still was important, and there is such a thing as too big. But even in the video where knights were downed and finished off with a dagger, the dagger was used as a precision instrument. They weren't downed by the dagger in the first place.
She has shared stories in which people have been hit with dozens of bullets and survived.
Looking at this with common sense, I think it's fairly obvious that certain parts of the body are more critical than others. Yes, knives, bullets, and swords are all dangerous and deadly (as is a homemade prison shank). However, there's a degree of precision that is important in any attack. I have to be less precise with a handgrenade than a gun and even more precise with a knife if I want to attack to kill.
It's about impossible to cut someone's hand off (at the wrist likely, not through bone) with a knife swing or stab. It's still unlikely with a sword, but not impossible. A battle axe? Increasingly likely. (I like to cook, and I have to say, even cutting through a steak with a knife designed to do so can take some effort...and the steak isn't fighting back. A butcher's cleaver makes the job a lot easier.)
My point is, the larger the weapon, the less necessary it is to use it for precision. Of course, precision still was important, and there is such a thing as too big. But even in the video where knights were downed and finished off with a dagger, the dagger was used as a precision instrument. They weren't downed by the dagger in the first place.
I think the real point of the rising damages of larger weapons is to just give players more choice and to give those choices meaning.
All blades could be 1d6-- dagger, shortsword, longsword, bastardsword, greatsword. If you did that... the choice of weapon for a player would just be a matter of fluff. "I envision my character wielding a big blade!" and thus he does. But at some point... we moved away from that idea and began giving weapons different properties so that each weapon was "unique" and gave us a mechanical reason to wield it in addition to a fluff one.
At this point... it comes down to "how do you make all blades unique"? Weapon speeds would be one way to do it... smaller weapons on average can be wielded faster than larger ones... but the weapon speed rules were removed from the game when initiative became circular. So after that... what else is there besides damage dice? Barring getting into very esoteric weapon-fighting simulation rules a la The Riddle of Steel rpg... changing damage is really it (since we're saving the different weapon properties to differentiate the weapon classes, not the weapons within a single class).
So once you decide to use damage dice... you pretty much either go low/small to high/large, or low/large to high/small. And based upon years of gaming history... we are all used to and accepting of the methodology that is currently in use.
But I think this is the reason why class design occasionally dictates to us what types of weapons we use... in order to give less-powerful weapon a much more powerful boost in the hands of the masters who can use them. Daggers absolutely can be incredibly deadly in the right hands... which is precisely why rogues got bonuses to wielding them. Sneak attack bonus assured that even with a dagger, a rogue would still do more damage than a greatsword wielder. The additional +1 to attack meant that the rogue would hit more often and thus do more damage with them. They were also given a prestige class that gave out one of (if not the only) possible way to get an 18-20 crit range... thus assuring even more damage.
So I don't think it's a bad thing that weapons on a generic front have higher damage dice the larger they get. It's a simple method of making different weapons actually mechanically different, this giving players more meaningful choices on what to wield.
All blades could be 1d6-- dagger, shortsword, longsword, bastardsword, greatsword. If you did that... the choice of weapon for a player would just be a matter of fluff. "I envision my character wielding a big blade!" and thus he does. But at some point... we moved away from that idea and began giving weapons different properties so that each weapon was "unique" and gave us a mechanical reason to wield it in addition to a fluff one.
At this point... it comes down to "how do you make all blades unique"? Weapon speeds would be one way to do it... smaller weapons on average can be wielded faster than larger ones... but the weapon speed rules were removed from the game when initiative became circular. So after that... what else is there besides damage dice? Barring getting into very esoteric weapon-fighting simulation rules a la The Riddle of Steel rpg... changing damage is really it (since we're saving the different weapon properties to differentiate the weapon classes, not the weapons within a single class).
So once you decide to use damage dice... you pretty much either go low/small to high/large, or low/large to high/small. And based upon years of gaming history... we are all used to and accepting of the methodology that is currently in use.
But I think this is the reason why class design occasionally dictates to us what types of weapons we use... in order to give less-powerful weapon a much more powerful boost in the hands of the masters who can use them. Daggers absolutely can be incredibly deadly in the right hands... which is precisely why rogues got bonuses to wielding them. Sneak attack bonus assured that even with a dagger, a rogue would still do more damage than a greatsword wielder. The additional +1 to attack meant that the rogue would hit more often and thus do more damage with them. They were also given a prestige class that gave out one of (if not the only) possible way to get an 18-20 crit range... thus assuring even more damage.
So I don't think it's a bad thing that weapons on a generic front have higher damage dice the larger they get. It's a simple method of making different weapons actually mechanically different, this giving players more meaningful choices on what to wield.
injury to a person is going to be related to the size or depth of the wound.
small blades inflict smaller wounds. why?
Force = mass times velocity.
If I sneak up behind you and slide my kabar into your back at the right spot, it will puncture your heart and you will die.
So obviously, a sharp knife and proper usage can kill a man.
but 2 dudes slashing with a sword vs. a dagger? The wounds from the sword will be worse. Because the weight of the blade times its speed says so.
And yes, everybody carried daggers, so of course they were technically on the battlefield. But they weren't a primary weapon. Because normally, the guy holding a dagger is pretty desperate if he's going to face off a soldier carrying a sword.
People keep having to qualify that with "against a trained swordsman". But there's a key detail missing. Nowadays, people with swords are just people who bought swords at the renfair to hang on their wall. Back then, if you had a sword, you were also getting trained in it. it was part of the culture.*
*part of the culture of the people who could afford swords. peasants got clubs and spears and other easy things.
So if I beamed back in time (or into D&D-land) and saw a guy draw a sword, I would ASSUME he knows how to use it.
Whereas, if I broke into your house and saw a sword, I actually have a pretty good chance that you do NOT know how to use it.
Never bring a knife to a sword fight.
small blades inflict smaller wounds. why?
Force = mass times velocity.
If I sneak up behind you and slide my kabar into your back at the right spot, it will puncture your heart and you will die.
So obviously, a sharp knife and proper usage can kill a man.
but 2 dudes slashing with a sword vs. a dagger? The wounds from the sword will be worse. Because the weight of the blade times its speed says so.
And yes, everybody carried daggers, so of course they were technically on the battlefield. But they weren't a primary weapon. Because normally, the guy holding a dagger is pretty desperate if he's going to face off a soldier carrying a sword.
People keep having to qualify that with "against a trained swordsman". But there's a key detail missing. Nowadays, people with swords are just people who bought swords at the renfair to hang on their wall. Back then, if you had a sword, you were also getting trained in it. it was part of the culture.*
*part of the culture of the people who could afford swords. peasants got clubs and spears and other easy things.
So if I beamed back in time (or into D&D-land) and saw a guy draw a sword, I would ASSUME he knows how to use it.
Whereas, if I broke into your house and saw a sword, I actually have a pretty good chance that you do NOT know how to use it.
Never bring a knife to a sword fight.
ExploderWizard
Hero
You did read the story in post #3 right?
Also, circumstances are everything.
Lets do battle, you get a sword of your choice and I get a 8" hunting knife.
Oh and I choose the battleground....... a phone booth.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Of course it does. Bigger wieldable weapons normally do more damage. (Fullblades are something else).
Name me one army for which the dagger was a primary weapon. On the battlefield with very rare exceptions it's ranged weapons and long pieces of wood all the way. The main use of the dagger I can think of was for the Coup De Grace - dispatching either wounded people or knights you've already pinned to the ground. Hardly an effective weapon against plate armour.
Daggers are effective because they are portable. (Oh, and the gladius was a short sword. Kinda like a dagger but bigger. And eventually replaced by the larger Spatha).
A primary symptom. And the fullblade comes from the same motivation as anime heroes with ridiculously big swords. Rule of Cool. (On the other hand I have no idea where the Dire Flail comes from).
And a sword and board user would make mincemeat of the knife wielder. Your point? Other than that the fullblade is a silly weapon (I treat it as specialist greatsword training).
Wik
First Post
Fair enough. Then you should know just how tough the human body can be. We can get into a long discussion about surface area of blades in penetrating injuries, but that's a bit too dark, even for a first aid weenie suchs as myself.
Agreed. Just speaking from my own personal experiences, which as I mentioned upthread seem to contradict your earlier assertions. The human body is far less frail than you make it out to be.
Check out the story of the guy who just won a medal of honor in the US, for example. He was shot twice in the legs, and kept going despite massive pain. Then a grenade basically blew up in his hand, and he was still able to tie his own tourniquette and direct his men. Granted, that was so badass they gave him a medal for it, but still - human body is tough.
Yyup. And the celts and scots threw cabers into the ranks to break those formations up, so that they could use their dudes armed with longer-reached weapons in one-on-one fighting where they had more of a chance. Generally, length/reach is everything. This is coming from a rather intense romanphile.
Can't help but notice neither of those weapons were knives.
But I get your basic point, there.Well, I ain't no Japanophile, but I'm gonna need to ask for a source on this one. Warrior castes usually make it to a warrior caste for a reason. And I've held a katana in my hands - those things aren't to be taken lightly.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
I understand what he's saying, and though he's oversimplifying things a bit, there's a kernel of truth.
Katana's have taken many different forms throughout the centuries. We tend to use the word "Katana" for any single-edged, curved, Japanese sword. The Japanese don't (or at least those that study the history of the Japanese sword). They have different names for the different swords, with varying lengths and degree of curve based on the purpose of the weapon - which could be anything from personal defense to attacking horses, and every use in between.
The sword that we typically call a Katana, although capable of use on the battlefield, was mostly a duelling weapon. In earlier centuries, Samurai were mounted warriors focused on archery more than personal prowess with a sword. The swords they did carry in battle were typically longer than what we today call a Katana, and usually had a more significant curve to them, so as to be more effective at attacking horses and other mounted combatants. Samurai used many weapons, and as with all combat and combatants throughout history, would endeavor to use the best tool for the given job.
To the OP: @Kzach
I understand the arguments for bigger weapons doing more damage. In theory, a big sword can hack off a limb, essentially doing more "damage" than a knife in most situations. But I see what you're saying also: a knife to the heart causing immediate death is just as lethal as the sword hacking off a limb - and maybe even more so as losing the limb may be more survivable.
I think the problem lies in people seeing the potential wound one weapon can make as compared to another, and view that as the only consideration to "lethality". Of course that potential wound is usually demonstrated on a defenseless target (i.e.: not fighting back or defending itself).
The lethality and usefulness of a weapon is determined by much more than just the size of the potential wounds it can make. The other equally important factors would include how efficiently the weapon can be used, how well it can be defended against, how effective it is against different defences (armor, shields, reach, etc.), how fast or slow it is, the weapons reach, etc. - but size does, to a certain extent, contribute to the equation.
Maybe a more realistic damage system (while trying to maintain ease of gameplay) would eliminate the "damage" category of each weapon, but add bonuses to attack and defense based on the aspects of the weapon (and possibly even adding situational modifiers, such as a pick versus plate, or using a large weapon in a confined area, etc.), and then simply determine damage from the difference between the attack roll and the targets AC/Defense.
In this manner, a dagger - though potentially just as lethal as a sword - might have a lower attack and defense bonus (mostly due to size). And a sword with potentially the same lethality as the knife, would have an attack and defense bonus due it's size. And each would still have the same critical threat ranges they already possess.
Designing a mechanic like this though would either require the elimination of Critical Hits or changing what Critical Hits mean (say into something that creates a "wound" that generates a penalty - like -2 to attack, defense, and checks on top of any determined Hit Point damage).
The advantage of the mechanic would be eliminating the damage roll (speeding up combat resolution), and naturally incorporating a "Damage Reduction" effect without having to subtract a DR (someone with a high defense or armor class is likely going to lose less Hit Points on average than someone with a lower defense or armor class).
The possible disadvantages would be increased math at character creation or for varying circumstances, and the potential for grindy combat (especially against opponents of equal skill/level).
I think it would be fun to explore though.
Last edited:
Naszir
First Post
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.
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.
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.
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.
Flatus Maximus
First Post
Actually: Force = mass * acceleration. However, momentum = mass * velocity.
Similar Threads
