Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5981086" data-attributes="member: 6668292">That's not quite scientific enough for me to accept, based on my other personal experiences. I'll note one below.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).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).As with all weapons, certainly. They're better in certain areas in certain ways.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.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.I mentioned a stab wound, not a slash wound.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).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).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.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.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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification