Advice wanted: 3.5 weapon sizing

[Andor]

Oh I'm sure discipline is what makes a gladius effective. *rolleyes*
And I'm sure they all went towards longswords because they were less effective ... I mean ask the american army if they want to go back to muskets. *rolleyes*

Discipline is what keeps your army in formation, where the gladius is the superior weapon. By late period the romans no longer kept formation, and in single combat the longer weapon is superior. Late period romans would have had their asses handed to them by the great-grandfathers.

That's amazing that you managed to combine "nonsense" and the comparison between being hit in the arm vs. being hit the gizzard.
Let's try and add some sense: Would you rather let me whack you in the arm with a sword or poke you in the arm with a dagger?
Or would you rather let me whack you in the gizzard with a sword or poke you in the gizzard with a dagger?
Let me guess... the sword wins both times now right?

If I was stupid enough to stand at the perfect distance so that you could hit me in the guts with a sword I would deserve it. If I'm not at that perfect distance however your blows are looping in from the outside and thus hiting my arms and legs on the outside. Lots of big dramatic muscle damage, but no major arteries, no vital organs. The dagger is always in line with your body, and nearly impossible to get and keep out of line. Therefore the typical swordblow is a slash to the arm/leg, and the typical dagger blow is a thrust to the vitals. Muscle cuts are dramatic but even before modern medicine would often heal well with stiches. This is why the english hated to duel the spanish/italians. The english would slash with their 'rapiers' and the italians would neatly pierce their vitals with an epee, leaving them to die horribly of peritinitus.

Um... sure... Swiss mercenaries like the ones I find described here:
http://www.fact-index.com/p/pi/pike__weapon_.html
or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikemen
or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Reislaeufer_Luzerner_Schilling.jpg
Which all mention/display they carried swords for close combat and pikes for cavalry?
I'm sure the artist just drew them in there for kicks.

So this is showing me what exactly? That pike dominate the field and the guys in the front rank draw swords for fighting in the press? Just like I described armies doing since roman days? Wow, you sure proved me wrong. Oh wait. Sword specialists only drew double pay. I stand corrected and duely chastised.

Do you have any idea how many swords have been found? At all? Were there that many noblemen? This is wrong on so many levels it's hard to describe them all.

When did I say that the sword was exclusively the weapon of nobility? I was pointing to the source of it's panache.

I've been doing it for 8 and have no where near the difficulty you have. Try hitting the spear haft at it's furthest point where they have less leverage than you do. When they have to readjust their aim is worst, so step in. Or use a sheild and walk into it. When in doubt, break the spear. Works like a charm, has been since time memorial.

What group are you fighting with, exactly, that uses live steel that you can chop a shaft off with? And why aren't you catching a butt spike when you try that?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There's plenty of modern data on deep slash wounds. Just because modern armies use bullets almost exclusively doesn't mean that the rest of the world does.

Organizations like WHO and Doctors Without Borders keep track of how people die. Machettes and other large slashing weapons still get used in regions of Asia, Africa, and South America, but by % of survivors, the wounds they inflict are generally less dangerous than injuries from thrusting weapons in the same regions.

Slash wounds open up. Their depths and boundaries are fairly well defined.

Even with modern equipment, its difficult to repair all of the damage from a puncture wound. Their boundaries tend to close in such a way as to be fairly invisible, and their depths are even more difficult to discern.

 

[Storyteller01]

If I was stupid enough to stand at the perfect distance so that you could hit me in the guts with a sword I would deserve it. If I'm not at that perfect distance however your blows are looping in from the outside and thus hiting my arms and legs on the outside. Lots of big dramatic muscle damage, but no major arteries, no vital organs. The dagger is always in line with your body, and nearly impossible to get and keep out of line. Therefore the typical swordblow is a slash to the arm/leg, and the typical dagger blow is a thrust to the vitals. Muscle cuts are dramatic but even before modern medicine would often heal well with stiches. This is why the english hated to duel the spanish/italians. The english would slash with their 'rapiers' and the italians would neatly pierce their vitals with an epee, leaving them to die horribly of peritinitus.

Look at it from a different angle (literally). Both styles are equally viable. Swords, while coming from the outside, target key bleeding points such as arteries under the arm, the femorial artery, throat, etc. Even if you didn't hit your intended target, the loss of a limb or extensive meant slow death by blood loss unless the fight ended immediately.

Avoiding such an attack means moving off a plane or line. Anything on that path of attck will get hit.


Piercing requires precision, but can gain access to much more vital areas. It attacks on a point. Avoiding the attack means avoiding said point; something much easier to do than avoiding a line or plane.


Look at it from other dualing examples: Japanese duals were nearly always fatal. Those that weren't left difigurement. In contrast, epee/rapier duals didn't have anything close to the same fatality rate. Piercing blows were also to the hands and arms (they were easier to hit. Getting the vitals meant running yourself though on his sword). The fight ended when the opponents couldn't wield his sword. Blood loss was minimal (by comparison), and fatalities were limited to those who deliberately chose to make the kill.

 

[Andor]

Look at it from a different angle (literally). Both styles are equally viable. Swords, while coming from the outside, target key bleeding points such as arteries under the arm, the femorial artery, throat, etc. Even if you didn't hit your intended target, the loss of a limb or extensive meant slow death by blood loss unless the fight ended immediately.

Avoiding such an attack means moving off a plane or line. Anything on that path of attck will get hit.

Piercing requires precision, but can gain access to much more vital areas. It attacks on a point. Avoiding the attack means avoiding said point; something much easier to do than avoiding a line or plane.

Look at it from other dualing examples: Japanese duals were nearly always fatal. Those that weren't left difigurement. In contrast, epee/rapier duals didn't have anything close to the same fatality rate. Piercing blows were also to the hands and arms (they were easier to hit. Getting the vitals meant running yourself though on his sword). The fight ended when the opponents couldn't wield his sword. Blood loss was minimal (by comparison), and fatalities were limited to those who deliberately chose to make the kill.

Oh, I'm not pretending that both styles aren't valid. I'm reacting to DMs assertion that the sword made the spear obsolete, and that the slashing style sword is superior to the piercing sword. Both of which claims are anti-historical and rubbish. If the spear was obsolete why did it remain in use until the bayonet was invented? (Functionally a spear that goes boom.) If slashing is superior why was the estoc invented and why did it's descendants the epee and small sword become the civillian weapons of choice? (Civillian specifically because the epee and small sword delt poorly with armour and were easily broken by a heavier blade thus making poor mass combat weapons. The estoc was invented to deal with armour, but is a specialty cavalry weapon.)

Another point re slashing sword vs spear/piercing sword. Armour is more effective against a slash than a thrust beacuse the energy of the blow is distributed across more of the armour.

And while Japanese duels were plenty lethal I think culture plays into that heavily. Also that the samurai fighting styles tended to rely on the armour for defense and in a duel you weren't wearing any.

 

[ARandomGod]

Well, to an extent you're right. Trying to apply logical science to a game usually will cause more problems than it's worth. However, you must apply SOME logic to the game, otherwise it's just a random jumble of crap.

So, big things have big hands. Big hands need big tools. Small things have small hands. Small hands need small tools. Big tools do not fit small hands. That's all the logic you need. If you throw that out, who's to say your dimuniative pixie rogue can't use the colossal+ dragon's greatsword? Once you throw out basic logic, you've just thrown out the entire game.

Big hands, big tools - small hands, small tools. It's not a scientific equation, it's just common sense.

"Big hands, big tools - small hands, small tools. It's not a scientific equation, it's just common sense."

Good point. And now you're getting into MY physics pet peeve about weapon size. That being, strength and force. A character's strength represents the amount of force they are capable of bringing to bear. If you apply a LOT of force to a small object, it's going to hurt a lot. If you apply a lirrle force to a big object, it's just not going to move at all, and therefore not really hurt you much.

By which I mean, yes getting hit by a two ton truck going 25 MPH will hurt more than getting hit by a bicycle going 25MPH. But it takes a lot more strength (force) to accelerate that two ton truck to that speed.

If you applied the same amount of force to a bicycle it would pierce armor.

If you applied the force expended to shoot a .45 bullet towards hurling a bullet towards someone, it can kill a man. If you apply that force to a car, it won't move an inch.

So it's *strength* and force that should alter the damage done, and not the weapon size itself. Yes a huge chunk of metal will hurt more if it hits you at the same speed as a small chunk of metal, but it takes more to move that big chunk.

Now look at halfling's and Half Ogre's.
A halfling gets -2 str.
A half ogre get's +6 str.

These things make sense. The half ogre is bigger. It will, in general, hit harder.

Using a point buy system the strongest halfling is str 16. The weakest half ogre is 14. Therefore logically the strongest halfling should be able to apply more force to an object compared to the weakest ogre. Now let's take "manufactured" weapons out of this equation, and look at the monk. For more fun make it end-game. ...

The weakest possible ogre monk (8+4=12) at level 20 (4d8 damage) would deal 5-33 damage, for an average of 19.

Whereas the strongest possible Halfling monk (18-2=16) at level 20
(2d8) would deal 5-19 damage, for an average of 12.

That's right, the absolute strongest possible halfling would have to
do maximum damage in order to deal out what the weakest possible ogre does *on average*.

This makes no sense according to physics. That ogre isn't as strong as the halfling, he therefore cannot apply as much force to his much more massive hands.

Bullet proof vests work not by removing the force of the bullet, but by spreading that force over your body. So the same amount of force more spread out actually does less damage.

 

[ARandomGod]

Another point re slashing sword vs spear/piercing sword. Armour is more effective against a slash than a thrust beacuse the energy of the blow is distributed across more of the armour.

That's how bullet proof vests work too, and a large part of the physics section of my arguement on why/how the weapon sizing in 3.5 doesn't actually apply to real world. With the same amount of strength behind the hit, a smaller focal point will do more actual damage.

 

[Storyteller01]

That's how bullet proof vests work too, and a large part of the physics section of my arguement on why/how the weapon sizing in 3.5 doesn't actually apply to real world. With the same amount of strength behind the hit, a smaller focal point will do more actual damage.

Adding to the physics arguement:

Slashing also works in this manner. Look at how you cut veggies. You come in at an angle, focusing the initail cut at one piont on the blade entering at an odd angle.

They work in the same manner as a giottine (butchered spelling); energy is focused on one point of the blade, breaking surface tension. The rest is gravy.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

As entertaining as this p!ssing contest is, gentlemen, I've got something for the original poster.

You have a group of relative newbies. Please, PLEASE don't throw all the complex stuff at them. They could give a toss what the physics and game-balance justification is, if they want a little Frodo-type guy with a sword, just tell them how much damage it does and be done with it.

I promise you that trying to do everything in full detail will just drag down the excitement for them. It's not like 1d6 vs. 1d8 is going to break the game.

Anyway, good luck with your game!

 

[DungeonMaster]

Discipline is what keeps your army in formation, where the gladius is the superior weapon. By late period the romans no longer kept formation, and in single combat the longer weapon is superior. Late period romans would have had their asses handed to them by the great-grandfathers.

Yeah that's a fantastic analysis.

If I was stupid enough to stand at the perfect distance so that you could hit me in the guts with a sword I would deserve it. If I'm not at that perfect distance however your blows are looping in from the outside and thus hiting my arms and legs on the outside.

That's an even better one. "looping in from the outside thus hiting my arms and legs on the outside". What the hell are you an arachnid? Is your gut covered by a magical barrier of legs? You've clearly never used a sword - ever.

Therefore the typical swordblow is a slash to the arm/leg, and the typical dagger blow is a thrust to the vitals.

REALLY? NEWS TO ME.
[sarcasm]
I guess next time you come at me with a 1-inch blade I'm going to stick my vitals out at it but when you come swinging with 3 feet of steel I'm going to throw my arm in the way. I mean I wouldn't be tempted to bat your silly dagger with my hand or anything. Better to use the vital organs.
[/sarcasm]

So this is showing me what exactly? That pike dominate the field and the guys in the front rank draw swords for fighting in the press? Just like I described armies doing since roman days? Wow, you sure proved me wrong. Oh wait. Sword specialists only drew double pay. I stand corrected and duely chastised.

It's showing you a historically painted picture of pikemen with swords at their sides and an explanation from an online encyclopedia that pikes are used for cavalry and swords are used for close combat. It's also called a "reference" and a "source of accepted knowledge" while you have provided nothing more than your own misguided perceptions of history (and reality).

When did I say that the sword was exclusively the weapon of nobility? I was pointing to the source of it's panache.

Probably in that quote? Ah, I see now. I was supposed to infer that your words had other meaning than what you wrote down. Next time try telepathy. Better results.

Anyhow, this is pointless and clearly far off topic.

 

[babomb]

You have a group of relative newbies. Please, PLEASE don't throw all the complex stuff at them.

An excellent point. I plan to ease them into the rules. I just need to know what column of the table to tell them to look at.