D&D 5E People are Squishy (Abstract combat).

[LostSoul]

If it worked the way you imagine, heavy weapons would lose their only advantage, rendering them useless, and everybody in history would have used the fastest, tiniest skunkstabber they could find to fight each other.

It does work the way I imagine because that is the system I use in my game.

Let's say you have a dagger and you're fighting a guy with a greatsword. The engagement has just begun so you're 10' apart. If you want to do any serious damage you need to get in close and stab at a vital spot. So you say, "I get in close and stab him in the neck." That's fine, I'd say that's a "Deadly" strike (assuming there's no armour). The guy with the greatsword has more options. He could slash at you or try to run you through, both of which are "Deadly" attacks (again, assuming there's no armour).

That means the guy with the greatsword is going to get some bonuses to his attack roll and AC.

Now if the guy had a sword and shield, I might say that it's not even possible to stab him in the neck - you'd need to do something to get around his guard. Same thing with a dragon - if you want to stab it in the eye, you will need to climb on its back or something like that. But if you do get in close - right up in his face - your dagger is going to be more deadly than the greatsword or sword and shield combo. He'll have to push you back before he can use his weapon again.

I think all of this is abstracted out in D&D combat - you don't know what the characters are doing until the dice have been rolled. In that sort of system damage dice work well, for the reasons you give.

 

[Dozen]

It does work the way I imagine because that is the system I use in my game.

And I can see this system works out. In fact I like it very much! I wonder if you could share your notes, maybe discuss the details when you have time?

 

[Argyle King]

Yes humans can rise to the powers of the gods, but Conan never survives having a greataxe split his head in twain, he always ducks out of the way.

One reason (among many) why I've come to love games which use less abstract HP while also allowing for active defenses (parry, dodge, block.)

 

[LostSoul]

And I can see this system works out. In fact I like it very much! I wonder if you could share your notes, maybe discuss the details when you have time?

I have my "one-page" (it's actually two or three) combat system attached to this post.

There are some kinks to work out - in play I can run it, but I think I am doing something at the table that I haven't been able to express in the document. Movement bonuses to AC and the difference between the target having a situational advantage and the attacker having a disadvantage are strange on the page, not so much in my head.

The rules don't come out and state specifics, like "If the target has a shield [blah blah blah]" because I expect that each individual group can make their own decisions on what is a valid action and what's not, or what actions get modifiers, or all of that sort of thing. If you wanted to have gritty action you could; if you wanted to let PCs do crazy stunts you could do that as well. I'm not sure the numbers actually make this work, though - I think they bias the system towards a certain style. Oh well.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I agree that the DnD combat system could be much better done different than the old, abstract Hit points + damage dice + armor class. However, changing it up too much would make the game 'not DnD'... so I don't expect Next to take this direction. It would be nice to have some of these as options tho:

1- Attack damage is based on the skill of the attacker versus the skill of the defender
2 - equipment {armor, weapon, spell, etc} give the character expanded options instead of escalating the math. Different weapons allow for different types of attacks.
3 - Character 'Tiers' are levers used by GMs to build the world they want, distinctly different than character levels. This allows a game with a 1st level warrior{Spartacus}, 1st level demi-god {Hercules}, and a 1st level cambion {Spawn} to all fight with equal skill but with different feeling. See recent movie {whose name I am forgetting} in which the greek hero character {demi-god} defeated a Chimera with a picnic table.
4 - The environment matters in a way that is easy to implement. Too many combats are run in empty rooms with the combatants standing toe-to-toe. I want a game mechanic that encourages diving behind cover, maneuvering around obstacles, and generally being something other than two bags of HP slugging each other.

Is this doable? I think so. Next could probably tweak the current assumptions about combat and build peices of this into the game.

But, back on track with the OP.
IMHO ignorance drives the 'battle axes are the bomb and need to deal more damage', same with the whole 9mm versus 45 versus 50 cal. Movies and TV shows play up the sexy weapons. Real world? the most deadly secret service {Isreal's} uses .22 cal pistols and highly trained operatives. The Roman Legionnaires primary weapon was the short sword. The Mohican's weapon of choice was the tomahawk.

Bigger isn't always better.

 

[Argyle King]

But, back on track with the OP.
IMHO ignorance drives the 'battle axes are the bomb and need to deal more damage', same with the whole 9mm versus 45 versus 50 cal. Movies and TV shows play up the sexy weapons. Real world? the most deadly secret service {Isreal's} uses .22 cal pistols and highly trained operatives. The Roman Legionnaires primary weapon was the short sword. The Mohican's weapon of choice was the tomahawk.

Bigger isn't always better.

The .22 is often used because it tends to tumble and ricochet inside the target rather than just punching through. This causes more internal damage. There are similar reasons behind why the US uses the 5.56 round instead of the more common 7.62.

As for the .50 cal... I can assure you that it is as effective as you'd think. I'd go so far as to say many action movies actually downplay what an actual .50 cal will do. From real world experience, I can honestly say that I've seen what just one round for a M2 will do to a human being's head, and I assure you that it isn't pretty. Suffice to say the entry wound was rather impressive in size; when I looked for the exit wound, I discovered that the back of the target's skull was missing.

You're right; bigger isn't always better. However, there are reasons for why those weapons were invented. In the context of D&D, why those weapons were invented doesn't often come into play because the combat system is abstract enough that we wouldn't notice. For example, slashing weapons (such as a sword) often have a very hard time getting through armor. A weapon like an axe or a war pick which can act as a lever to amplify the user's strength (especially in the case of the pick) can very easily get through some of the very armor that a slashing sword might struggle against. In D&D, all of that is (usually) handled by attacks vs AC.

What I mentioned about being a lever is true too. Weapons which are designed to be swung are designed that way to leverage the strength of the user. Take a look at a simple hammer for nails; it's designed in that shape for a reason; with the right technique, it allows the user to impart more power into the head and the blow against the target. Such weapons do have their downfalls though. Typically, it is more difficult to recover from a swing and get back into a position where the user can defend himself. In games which aren't D&D, that might be portrayed by saying the battle axe cannot be used to parry on the same turn it was used to attack. In D&D -as already mentioned- we use attacks versus AC and different sizes of dice for damage, and that's it. The game doesn't bother to illustrate those minor differences because it is beyond the granularity level of the game.

Those differences might not matter in an abstract system which doesn't care about such things, but there are indeed differences which matter.

 

[Balesir]

I agree that the DnD combat system could be much better done different than the old, abstract Hit points + damage dice + armor class.

Better for what, though? It might be (arguably) more "realistic", for sure. Changing the way wounding is handled would make the biggest difference, there, IMO (ditch hit points and use wounds that work more like curses or diseases, and have to be "fought" to heal and are dangerous while they stick around is, I think, the best way). But "realistic" is not "best" for all cases. Hit points/AC/damage dice do fun, 'gamist' tactics and cinematic pacing really well. And they're simple.

The Roman Legionnaires primary weapon was the short sword. The Mohican's weapon of choice was the tomahawk.

The Roman Legionary's primary weapon was his scutum (shield). The gladius, just as the longsword for a Germanic "viking" warrior, was there to exploit the openings created using the shield, converting an opening into a kill or a disabling wound. Evidence for this includes the way the shield grips were designed and the way sword grips were designed. Both changed later, because later warriors used their weapons in different ways (possibly pushed to do so by the increasing importance of mounted fighting and mounted fighters).

 

[Obryn]

Good game > Realistic combat simulation, IMO.

 

[Argyle King]

Good game > Realistic combat simulation, IMO.

Less Abstract Combat = Good Game, IMO


I in no way expect D&D to use other ways of portraying combat. However, for me personally, I prefer a game in which in-game tactics make sense to me and make sense given the world around my character instead of a game in which "good" tactics are ones which cater to what the game mechanics say is right rather than what makes sense given the situation.

 

[Balesir]

I in no way expect D&D to use other ways of portraying combat. However, for me personally, I prefer a game in which in-game tactics make sense to me and make sense given the world around my character instead of a game in which "good" tactics are ones which cater to what the game mechanics say is right rather than what makes sense given the situation.

I understand this impulse, but I found a problem when my images of what "medieval armed combat" looked like got a complete shake-up a few years back. Basically, tactics that "make sense" is something I realised I really have little clue about; the old, movie-inspired visions of "how you fight with sword and shield" turned out to be utter bunk. Someone facing an actual skilled combatant using those methods would probably be dead in under six seconds.

The problem got worse when I realised that, even if I learned how real combat worked, the players would still find it a mismatch - I would be killing their character for stuff they thought "made sense" while the NPCs would be doing stuff they thought bizarre. So, I decided that a good, clear game system that everybody could read and understand was a reasonable substitute. If it was just abstract enough to let everyone "fill in the blanks" with stuff that, to them, "made sense", so much the better.