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.
Take daggers as a for instance. Daggers and knives are exceptionally lethal weapons used throughout history and across vastly disparate cultures because they are just so damned effective. And yet, they are always at the bottom of the lists in terms of damage output.
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.
So where do we go from here? Is this a sacred cow now? Is there a way to step back from this Abyss? Do you even care?
Take daggers as a for instance. Daggers and knives are exceptionally lethal weapons used throughout history and across vastly disparate cultures because they are just so damned effective. And yet, they are always at the bottom of the lists in terms of damage output.
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.
So where do we go from here? Is this a sacred cow now? Is there a way to step back from this Abyss? Do you even care?