D&D 5E And Lo, the Fighter Did Get a Shtick of his Own... COMBAT SUPERIORITY!

[Warbringer]

It was an interesting idea in Complete Scoundrel (when we got Ambush feats that let a rogue spend Sneak Attack dice to gain other benefits), and it's still interesting now. Not sure about the increasing dice, though. Need to know more.

Agree with both point; scale the number of dice, not the type ... Favor +[w]

 

[ferratus]

While reach is a huge benefit, I'm also under the impression that the spear will also have more force behind it than the dagger.

Not really. A charging horse adds momentum, and holding a spear with two hands adds force, but the case would still be the same if you held the dagger in your hand (or two hands) and thrust directly.

And, again, I think the damage die difference comes back to "would you rather be nicked by a spear, or a two-handed sword?"

That's what I'm saying, it depends. Did the spear nick me for 1.5 inches of penetration, while the two-handed sword left a .5 inch deep gash that is 6 inches long? I think I'll take the two-handed sword gash instead of the spear nick.

That's certainly one way to do it. It's not my preference (I prefer to differentiate them quite substantially, but I like fiddly!), but I could see it. Didn't weapons in D&D used to do 1d6?

Yes, once upon a time all weapons did d6. Then Gary Gygax and Co. tried to make things a little more "realistic" by differentiating the weapons. Unfortunately they made a complete hash of it and put in different damage die types.


Well, I'm not familiar with this. I'm curious about opposing tactics, armor, numbers, and the like. Again, I'd rather this be resolved via damage reduction/armor penetration, but I don't think that's a popular stance at all.

Do you have a link or something to the longsword vs rapier claim here? This is foreign to me. I didn't think there was ever really a historical match between armies of longsword vs rapier (or even really duels).

Well, I said two-handed sword vs. rapier. Basically, two handed swords only really became practical with the advent of plate (not that they weren't used before that, but it wasn't very common since you couldn't use a shield for defense). But with plate, a two-handed sword doesn't really do the job, because armour takes all that mass from the massive sword, and deflects it. A better tactic against a knight is a long (to give reach) and thin (to slide in gaps in the armour), hence the estoc and later the rapier.

I thought the stiletto was developed and used to finish off heavily armored opponents (getting through the eye slit, etc.), and that they were first carried by knights?

The stiletto did indeed start as a development of a dagger that would be better for sticking in armoured opponents, but it quickly became popular in medieval assassinations because it was easily concealable and could penetrate easily and leave deep piercing wounds even if they were wearing leather or even a jack of plates (which we know as brigadine armour, and is another piece of equipment that needs to come back to D&D).

So really, they should be the favoured weapons of sneaky assassins in D&D right? Well no, because they use short swords, or pay a feat tax to use martial weapons. It makes me spit.

True. While weapons were developed for different situations, you've proven your point: you won't convince me that they were all equally damaging or deadly.

Why not? I can kill you with pretty much every weapon in the PHB. I will not need twice as long to kill you with one weapon or another in the PHB. So why have differing damage?

Back to damage reduction/armor penetration! Seriously, it helps a lot with what I want in the game. Does that mean it should be in the game? No.

Sure it does. Why wouldn't people want the best rules possible?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Not really. A charging horse adds momentum, and holding a spear with two hands adds force, but the case would still be the same if you held the dagger in your hand (or two hands) and thrust directly.

Interesting... do you have a link to something on this? My casual search didn't come up with anything, one way or the other.

That's what I'm saying, it depends. Did the spear nick me for 1.5 inches of penetration, while the two-handed sword left a .5 inch deep gash that is 6 inches long? I think I'll take the two-handed sword gash instead of the spear nick.

It's an equivalency thing. If a spear might be thrust 4 inches in, and a two-handed sword cuts 6 inches deep, then 1.5 inches from a spear is proportionally more than ½ an inch from the sword. If the nick was equivalent (the sword cut 2½ inches deep), which would you rather have?

Yes, once upon a time all weapons did d6.

I thought so.

Well, I said two-handed sword vs. rapier. Basically, two handed swords only really became practical with the advent of plate (not that they weren't used before that, but it wasn't very common since you couldn't use a shield for defense). But with plate, a two-handed sword doesn't really do the job, because armour takes all that mass from the massive sword, and deflects it. A better tactic against a knight is a long (to give reach) and thin (to slide in gaps in the armour), hence the estoc and later the rapier.

I was under the impression that these came into play after the invention of the gun, which made plate armor much less useful. Basically, sword and shield --> plate and sword --> guns --> no plate --> rapier. The rapier was used because enemies were less armored, and thus wouldn't be as effective against an armored opponent.

If I messed something up, though, let me know.

The stiletto did indeed start as a development of a dagger that would be better for sticking in armoured opponents, but it quickly became popular in medieval assassinations because it was easily concealable and could penetrate easily and leave deep piercing wounds even if they were wearing leather or even a jack of plates (which we know as brigadine armour, and is another piece of equipment that needs to come back to D&D).

So really, they should be the favoured weapons of sneaky assassins in D&D right? Well no, because they use short swords, or pay a feat tax to use martial weapons. It makes me spit.

Both of those still have issues being hidden. If you want to hide your weapon, having a concealable needle-pointed knife if better than a short sword or "martial" weapon. Thus, they're still useful, even with a lesser damage die.

Why not? I can kill you with pretty much every weapon in the PHB. I will not need twice as long to kill you with one weapon or another in the PHB. So why have differing damage?

Because weapons don't kill or damage to the same degree. I can survive a stab wound from your dagger, even if it's a solid hit (not a gut wound, in all likelihood, but something like an arm wound, or potentially even a head wound). It'll be a lot harder for me to survive a solid hit from a two-handed sword (where a hit to the head or arm is likely going to kill me).

Then there's all of the non-humanoid creatures that'll be fought, too. Bigger weapons are useful against bigger creatures. Things get hazy here, admittedly, because we start getting more into "fantasy" when we start talking about bulettes and storm giants and dragons.

Sure it does. Why wouldn't people want the best rules possible?

Because it slows the game down, or is too fiddly to remember. Neither of those are problems for me, but that's certainly why people don't want it base, and most people don't seem to want it in a module. As always, play what you like

 

[airwalkrr]

This idea is absolutely amazing. I see tons of potential here. I think they may have really hit upon an idea that makes the fighter a lot more fun to play by offering the option of complexity without requiring complexity. It sounds fascinating.

 

[ferratus]

Interesting... do you have a link to something on this? My casual search didn't come up with anything, one way or the other.

Just test it man. Grab a sharp blade, stab something. Affix that blade firmly to a stick, and stab it again. Your arm hasn't got any stronger because you are holding a stick. You have no real leverage that you are using. You have nothing that adds velocity to the weapon. So where is that extra force going to come from?

It's an equivalency thing. If a spear might be thrust 4 inches in, and a two-handed sword cuts 6 inches deep, then 1.5 inches from a spear is proportionally more than ½ an inch from the sword. If the nick was equivalent (the sword cut 2½ inches deep), which would you rather have?

I thought so.

I thought so what? If a two handed sword manages to cut deeply, that's a grevious wound. But thrusting weapons make deeper wounds than slashing weapons while needing a lot less force and energy. That's why thrusting weapons are probably going to do more serious damage with a glancing blow than your big two-handed sword.

The real advantage to the two-handed weapon is the arc, and your ability to use an edged weapon to control a large area around you. Its advantage is that it sweeps the guys with the spears aside. If a two-handed sword was simply better at killing, period, nobody in history would have used anything else. Two-handed swords however are better for killing in certain situations, which is when people used two-handed swords.

I was under the impression that these came into play after the invention of the gun, which made plate armor much less useful. Basically, sword and shield --> plate and sword --> guns --> no plate --> rapier. The rapier was used because enemies were less armored, and thus wouldn't be as effective against an armored opponent.

Nah, plate armour got thicker, and it continued to be useful. It is just that mobility became even more useful, and it became far too expensive to make gothic plate for one man when you could simply buy a regiment's worth of equipment (firearm, ammo, uniform, etc.) that was far more effective than one heavily armoured man.

Eventually firearms became powerful enough that pretty much all armour was fairly useless, but that came later.

Both of those still have issues being hidden. If you want to hide your weapon, having a concealable needle-pointed knife if better than a short sword or "martial" weapon. Thus, they're still useful, even with a lesser damage die.

Nah, in D&D people generally count on not being seen at all, so they don't worry about using larger weapons. Also, they use sneak attack in the midst of battle, but instead of it being a case of sliding a knife into the gaps in a blackguard's armour (since they aren't using a knife, dagger, stiletto or dirk), sneak attack is merely flanking. Not that flanking isn't a valid tactic, but it isn't really what sneak attack or backstab is trying to convey.

Because weapons don't kill or damage to the same degree. I can survive a stab wound from your dagger, even if it's a solid hit (not a gut wound, in all likelihood, but something like an arm wound, or potentially even a head wound). It'll be a lot harder for me to survive a solid hit from a two-handed sword (where a hit to the head or arm is likely going to kill me).

You're fighting with the dagger wrong. You don't slash with the dagger, that's a waste of time. You don't hold your dagger in front of you and slash upwards. That's also a waste of time. I grab you, and slide that bugger in someplace fatal, like in your shoulder between your neck and your collarbone... straight down.

But do you realize how much space you need to swing a greatsword? How much it weighs? How hard it is to do a full run carrying one? A dagger has none of these problems. A dagger is harder to dodge, harder to run away from, and I'll stab you 4 times for everytime you can swing a greatsword. 4 deep wounds in vital areas, and one stab would put so much pain in you that it is doubtful you could put up any defense against the other 3.

Now it certainly isn't a sure thing that you can kill a two-handed swordsman with a dagger. A two handed sword creates a wide swath of death that I am loathe to try and breach to get inside your defenses. But if you are a talking a time trial to kill someone (or something) that is unarmed and unarmoured, you better believe a dagger won't take any less time than a two-handed sword.

Heck, if what you are saying is true, they'd have used giant two-handed weapons for killing animals, rather than a small surgical slice with a very sharp knife to certain arteries.

Because it slows the game down, or is too fiddly to remember. Neither of those are problems for me, but that's certainly why people don't want it base, and most people don't seem to want it in a module. As always, play what you like

4e shows that you can have weapon qualities with discrete rules that don't slow down the game at all. Some reroll 1's for damage, some do extra damage on a critical, some can be used one or two-handed, some are light weapons, etc. Just as easy to remember as which die type your are supposed to use for each weapon. Easier even.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Just test it man. Grab a sharp blade, stab something. Affix that blade firmly to a stick, and stab it again. Your arm hasn't got any stronger because you are holding a stick. You have no real leverage that you are using. You have nothing that adds velocity to the weapon. So where is that extra force going to come from?

That's not quite scientific enough for me to accept, based on my other personal experiences. I'll note one below.

I thought so what?

That all weapons did 1d6 at one point. You must've messed up my quote while trying to reply to me; if you go back and look at my post, that's what the "I thought so" was in reply to (and you can see that I didn't edit the post).

If a two handed sword manages to cut deeply, that's a grevious wound. But thrusting weapons make deeper wounds than slashing weapons while needing a lot less force and energy. That's why thrusting weapons are probably going to do more serious damage with a glancing blow than your big two-handed sword.

That's why I mentioned equivalencies. I'd rather have a 1½ inch stab wound on my arm or shoulder than the equivalent from a two-handed sword in the same region (again, more on this personal experience below).

The real advantage to the two-handed weapon is the arc, and your ability to use an edged weapon to control a large area around you. Its advantage is that it sweeps the guys with the spears aside. If a two-handed sword was simply better at killing, period, nobody in history would have used anything else. Two-handed swords however are better for killing in certain situations, which is when people used two-handed swords.

As with all weapons, certainly. They're better in certain areas in certain ways.

Nah, plate armour got thicker, and it continued to be useful. It is just that mobility became even more useful, and it became far too expensive to make gothic plate for one man when you could simply buy a regiment's worth of equipment (firearm, ammo, uniform, etc.) that was far more effective than one heavily armoured man.

Eventually firearms became powerful enough that pretty much all armour was fairly useless, but that came later.

The always reliable wiki does indeed indicate that rapiers were developed before plate armor began to fade (due to powerful firearms), but the article says that the rapier was introduced as a "dress sword", though some versions were used on the battlefield.

I was a little off, it seems.

Nah, in D&D people generally count on not being seen at all, so they don't worry about using larger weapons. Also, they use sneak attack in the midst of battle, but instead of it being a case of sliding a knife into the gaps in a blackguard's armour (since they aren't using a knife, dagger, stiletto or dirk), sneak attack is merely flanking. Not that flanking isn't a valid tactic, but it isn't really what sneak attack or backstab is trying to convey.

Two things about this:
1) If you're not seen at all, go ahead and used the bigger weapon. I'm cool with that.
2) You have an understandable beef with the sneak attack/backstab mechanic (via flanking allowing it), but that doesn't strongly play into what I'm trying to discuss.

You're fighting with the dagger wrong. You don't slash with the dagger, that's a waste of time.

I mentioned a stab wound, not a slash wound.

You don't hold your dagger in front of you and slash upwards. That's also a waste of time. I grab you, and slide that bugger in someplace fatal, like in your shoulder between your neck and your collarbone... straight down.

The context of my quote is "it's easier to survive a wound from a dagger than a wound to the same region from a two-handed sword." And I think that's true. I admitted that both can kill you (see my comment on the stomach wound), but my point is that it's easier to kill with one than the other (and thus I'm okay with a larger damage die for that weapon).

But do you realize how much space you need to swing a greatsword? How much it weighs? How hard it is to do a full run carrying one? A dagger has none of these problems. A dagger is harder to dodge, harder to run away from, and I'll stab you 4 times for everytime you can swing a greatsword. 4 deep wounds in vital areas, and one stab would put so much pain in you that it is doubtful you could put up any defense against the other 3.

Well, let me comment briefly on this. Some years ago (I had just turned 20, and it was the day before Thanksgiving), I went to a theater to see what movies were playing (I wasn't even sure if I wanted to see any). I entered in the wrong entrance, and decided to drive around back and loop around to get closer to the movie display sign.

While behind the theater, I noticed two men blocking a woman up against the wall (they were leaning against it, casually; I didn't know if they all knew one another, or if something bad was going down). It was dark out, and the back was only lit with dim lighting. I parked my car in the back, tucked a two foot long crowbar in my pocket (it went from my pocket up, resting between my shirt and my hoodie, out of sight), and walked over, to ask what was wrong. One guy took a knife out, and the other guy asked what I was going to do.

The next ten seconds happened quickly. I went for my crowbar, and the guy with the knife lunged at me. His friend (who asked what I was going to do) freaked out (he yelled "what are you doing?" at his friend when he lunged at me), and the woman looked on silently (I wasn't watching her). I was stabbed in the right upper arm with the knife, and in my right hand (in the soft tissue near the thumb and index finger), before I could finish pulling the crowbar out and bring it to bear.

When I had the crowbar, I swung. Life was in slow motion. I wanted to stop him; that was the only thing that mattered. I was hurt, but didn't feel it. My first thought -in slow motion- was "hit him in the head" (I didn't). My second thought was to hit him in the leg (it's a bigger target). I swung, he stepped back, but the reach was too much. I connected right about the knee (he had baggy pants... oh, and a puffy jacket; I said it was years ago), and he fell down.

The situation resolved itself from there, though the buildup that led to it is still somewhat of a mystery to me. Needless to say, I can accept your take on how fast the knife is. As I said, I was bleeding from two different locations before I could even get the crowbar out (up out of my pocket, down out of my hoodie, and up again into a ready-to-swing position). And, based on that experience, I know how valuable reach is (even if it was only two feet), since I hit him even as he was backing up.

What I do know, though, is that a bigger weapon hitting in the same locations would have had a bigger impact on my ability to react. A bigger blade hitting my arm may have impaired it more than the basically superficial wound that the knife inflicted (some stitches, but the arm was sore and a little weakened, and that was about it). If a larger/longer blade had stabbed or slashed those same places, I don't know if I could have used that arm, of if I would have lost some fingers.

Personally, this plays into why I'm okay with bigger weapons dealing more damage. And, it's going to be hard for you to change my mind on this, unless I can get something online with some authority to make that be the case (it's why I ask for links to things).

Now it certainly isn't a sure thing that you can kill a two-handed swordsman with a dagger. A two handed sword creates a wide swath of death that I am loathe to try and breach to get inside your defenses. But if you are a talking a time trial to kill someone (or something) that is unarmed and unarmoured, you better believe a dagger won't take any less time than a two-handed sword.

I'm talking taking a glancing hit from each weapon. Based on my experience above, I'm sticking with what I've been saying. I'm sorry if that's unfair to this discussion.

Heck, if what you are saying is true, they'd have used giant two-handed weapons for killing animals, rather than a small surgical slice with a very sharp knife to certain arteries.

That's not what I said at all. Narrating the "you're out of HP" killing blow can be just as lethal with any weapon. However, I think it'll be easier to bring someone down to that point (via glancing blows) with a larger weapon; see my example above for why I believe that.

4e shows that you can have weapon qualities with discrete rules that don't slow down the game at all. Some reroll 1's for damage, some do extra damage on a critical, some can be used one or two-handed, some are light weapons, etc. Just as easy to remember as which die type your are supposed to use for each weapon. Easier even.

Rerolling 1's does slow the game down. So does that extra damage (you have to stop to roll it). So does damage reduction. So does reducing damage reduction via an armor penetrating mechanic.

Mind you, I'm okay with all of these things (and, in fact, utilize all of them, without exception, in my RPG). But, I do get why people like a faster, simpler game. All the weapons dealing the same base damage is simpler, but it saves no time (unless you're rolling multiple dice [2d6] or 1d12 [because they take forever to stop rolling], so it's a harder sell. Simplicity isn't a bad argument, though. It'll get a lot more traction than fiddly will. As always, play what you like

 

[ferratus]

That's not quite scientific enough for me to accept, based on my other personal experiences. I'll note one below.

Eh, I'm not going to do a research paper to win an argument on the internet. As I said, where are you getting the extra force from to support the claim that a spear does more damage in a thrust than a dagger? Answer me that, and I'll see if I can disprove that with some proper citations.

That's why I mentioned equivalencies. I'd rather have a 1½ inch stab wound on my arm or shoulder than the equivalent from a two-handed sword in the same region (again, more on this personal experience below).

Yes, but you are claiming that automatically a two-handed sword is going to make a deeper wound than a dagger in a glancing blow. However, a two-handed sword hitting a region doesn't necessarily mean that it will automatically do more damage. A two handed sword blow against the ribs might break several, but not penetrate that deeply. A two-handed sword might bounce off the collarbone. In those two regions a dagger would penetrate deep into your torso and murder you.

Likewise yes, a blow to the hand or leg with a dagger can be fended off with your hands and feet with minor injuries while a two handed sword would use its mass and cutting power to sever the limb.

But there are so many variables of how you fight, what you strike, and how well you are armoured, that I don't think you can say in abolute terms.

The always reliable wiki does indeed indicate that rapiers were developed before plate armor began to fade (due to powerful firearms), but the article says that the rapier was introduced as a "dress sword", though some versions were used on the battlefield.

Yeah, rapiers can be thought of as fancied up estocs or arming swords. Advances in metallurgy allowed blades to become thinner and still maintain their strength, and slipping into gaps of armoured opponents was the initial reason. Plus, you are also seeing the fact that thrusting swords with reach were favoured by lightly armoured men for speed and accuracy. Modern people tend to treat rapiers as toys, but they are actually a very deadly sword and fencing is a very deadly martial art.

The context of my quote is "it's easier to survive a wound from a dagger than a wound to the same region from a two-handed sword."

But that isn't always true (see above).

What I do know, though, is that a bigger weapon hitting in the same locations would have had a bigger impact on my ability to react. A bigger blade hitting my arm may have impaired it more than the basically superficial wound that the knife inflicted (some stitches, but the arm was sore and a little weakened, and that was about it). If a larger/longer blade had stabbed or slashed those same places, I don't know if I could have used that arm, of if I would have lost some fingers.

Maybe, or maybe he would have been slow enough with that bigger weapon that you could use your crowbar to block him or dodge so the wound was similarily light. Perhaps if you connected with the ribs or the thigh with your club instead of the knee, he would have taken the blow and stabbed you in the ribs or thigh, either of which could have killed you.

But nothing in that fight makes me believe that a your club (1d6) is a more effective weapon than his knife (1d3) in absolute terms, as it is in D&D. I'll accept that a knife when used against the limbs isn't a very effective weapon, but then neither is a club... but D&D has it do twice as much damage anyway.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Eh, I'm not going to do a research paper to win an argument on the internet. As I said, where are you getting the extra force from to support the claim that a spear does more damage in a thrust than a dagger? Answer me that, and I'll see if I can disprove that with some proper citations.

Looks like this is going nowhere. On to other parts of our discussion!

But there are so many variables of how you fight, what you strike, and how well you are armoured, that I don't think you can say in abolute terms.

No, the most you can get is abstractions. And, I think from an intuition-based perspective, most people are okay with bigger weapons damaging you more.

But that isn't always true (see above).

Right. Again, it's about abstractions, and the generally accepted intuitiveness of the playerbase.

Maybe, or maybe he would have been slow enough with that bigger weapon that you could use your crowbar to block him or dodge so the wound was similarily light.

This is an AC issue, not an HP issue, in my mind. But there's a whole "what HP represents" argument here that I'd rather avoid.

Perhaps if you connected with the ribs or the thigh with your club instead of the knee, he would have taken the blow and stabbed you in the ribs or thigh, either of which could have killed you.

Yes, that's a possibility. It's why I was so shaken afterwords. I don't see how this plays into damage that a bigger/longer blade would have inflicted on me, though.

But nothing in that fight makes me believe that a your club (1d6) is a more effective weapon than his knife (1d3) in absolute terms, as it is in D&D. I'll accept that a knife when used against the limbs isn't a very effective weapon, but then neither is a club... but D&D has it do twice as much damage anyway.

Well, swung with full force, I think it'd be hard for me not to at least fracture a bone if I hit a limb (and the attacker I did hit dropped when I did hit him). I did suffer a (mostly) superficial wound from the knife hit.

I think it's best just to agree to disagree on this one. You can have the last word if you want, but I'm just not convinced. Thanks for the civil and engaging discussion, though. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

Bringing back the lance's ability to do double damage from the back of a horse during a charge would be a good start. Heck, bringing back the lance at all would be a good idea.

I didn't know it was gone! Interesting.

To the best of my recollection 4e stats for the lance are found in Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium. When used while mounted, it does an extra +W damage. (I can't recall if this is confined to mounted charges, or applies to mounted attacks in general.)

 

[Balesir]

Sure it does. Why wouldn't people want the best rules possible?

I'm sure everyone does want the "best rules possible" - but the question is, best for what? You make the age-old mistake of assuming that there is only one "best". It's as if you are going around a supermarket pointing out every food that isn't yoghurt and saying "that would be much better if it was more like yoghurt"; not that yoghurt is bad - I like it - but it's not the only food there is.

In this case, throughout your argument, it seems like you (and [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION], too) conflate "most realistic" with "best". There are multiple RPG systems out there that do "realism" well; D&D has never been one of them - so why use it as a starting place to make one? To get anywhere near realistic hand-to-hand combat in D&D you would need to radically alter the damage system, the armour system, the manoeuvres system, the effect of shields (defence is only one use of them - they are actually rather effective used to attack to create openings for exploitation with the sword and to control an opponent's weapon during an attack routine) and much else besides.

The best argument for damage dice and so forth seems to me to be that they provide a good, fun game with interesting yet simple choices to be made by the player. Such a game, in a context of heroic fantasy with magic and dragons - is what D&D excels at, in my view. Trying to make it "realistic" is (a) doomed to fail, since we really have only sketchy ideas as to what "realistic" really is and (b) likely to make D&D a second-rate wannabe version of the likes of The Riddle of Steel, RuneQuest, GURPS and HârnMaster. I would much prefer to see it left to be its own thing, and, better still, be modified to really excel at doing that, to be honest.