It isn't damage dice that matters in a contest between a guy wielding a katana and a guy brandishing a Swingline stapler. The issue is reach. D&D doesn't model distinctions in reach at that granularity, so it's a moot point. Assuming a trained killer is inside your sword's reach with a random bludgeoning weapon you're in almost as much trouble as if he had a sword. When he hits you in the head you're probably out of the fight.
And that's completely glossing over how ineffectual most weapons with fast speed and longer reach are against people in any sort of metal armor. Swords are essentially useless as slashing devices against mail armor. They are bludgeons to put someone to ground with and then poorly-designed spears to impale them once they are helpless. Swords are for slashing up poorly armored peasants. If you want to kill someone in adventurer-caliber armor you use a bludgeon (war hammer, mace, flail) or some sort of piercing weapon backed up by massive concussive force (morning star).
What people always overlook when looking at historical efficacy of medieval weapons is that good metal armor was prohibitively expensive, the overwhelming bulk of all armies that fought simply didn't have it. Moreover, most of the nobles (who could afford such armor), were not assigned or disposed to fight one another in melee. They were deployed to rout vulnerable peasant infantry units, and were most often lost in battle by simply being swarmed under in a horde when dismounted. They'd be pinned to the ground and someone would stick a dagger or spear into a vulnerable part of their armor while they were helpless, or they'd have their helmet ripped off and their skull caved in with a bludgeon. This was true for samurai, knights, and just about any of their peers.
TL;DR: D&D weapons and armor mechanics aren't the least bit realistic because realistic isn't fun. D&D uses some easy-to-play abstractions that keep the game light and fun because trying to make all the martial activities obey physics while everyone else is playing wizards and fey is a fool's errand.
Does the great axe vs. dagger difference matter? Yes. Definitely. For anyone who isn't an adventurer it is a huge disparity: 1d4 vs. 1d12. The axe has a 300% advantage is maximum damage. Adventurers, however, are romanticized heroic characters who delve into progressively more legendary territory as they gain levels. At that point the type of weapon they carry is less a factor in their damage than their nigh-mythical prowess.
Heracles killed the Nemean Lion with his bare hands. He was Heracles. It doesn't matter that random-human-#153 would've had his neck ripped out by random-lion-#56 unless he used a weapon.
- Marty Lund
And that's completely glossing over how ineffectual most weapons with fast speed and longer reach are against people in any sort of metal armor. Swords are essentially useless as slashing devices against mail armor. They are bludgeons to put someone to ground with and then poorly-designed spears to impale them once they are helpless. Swords are for slashing up poorly armored peasants. If you want to kill someone in adventurer-caliber armor you use a bludgeon (war hammer, mace, flail) or some sort of piercing weapon backed up by massive concussive force (morning star).
What people always overlook when looking at historical efficacy of medieval weapons is that good metal armor was prohibitively expensive, the overwhelming bulk of all armies that fought simply didn't have it. Moreover, most of the nobles (who could afford such armor), were not assigned or disposed to fight one another in melee. They were deployed to rout vulnerable peasant infantry units, and were most often lost in battle by simply being swarmed under in a horde when dismounted. They'd be pinned to the ground and someone would stick a dagger or spear into a vulnerable part of their armor while they were helpless, or they'd have their helmet ripped off and their skull caved in with a bludgeon. This was true for samurai, knights, and just about any of their peers.
TL;DR: D&D weapons and armor mechanics aren't the least bit realistic because realistic isn't fun. D&D uses some easy-to-play abstractions that keep the game light and fun because trying to make all the martial activities obey physics while everyone else is playing wizards and fey is a fool's errand.
Does the great axe vs. dagger difference matter? Yes. Definitely. For anyone who isn't an adventurer it is a huge disparity: 1d4 vs. 1d12. The axe has a 300% advantage is maximum damage. Adventurers, however, are romanticized heroic characters who delve into progressively more legendary territory as they gain levels. At that point the type of weapon they carry is less a factor in their damage than their nigh-mythical prowess.
Heracles killed the Nemean Lion with his bare hands. He was Heracles. It doesn't matter that random-human-#153 would've had his neck ripped out by random-lion-#56 unless he used a weapon.
- Marty Lund
Last edited:
