Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kzach" data-source="post: 5326365" data-attributes="member: 56189">I wouldn't.If you're really wanting realism, I don't think any amount of tweaking D&D will fix it. There are other systems that do it better.My purpose in posting this was to provide a very simple system that made combat far more deadly and dangerous. Partly this also makes it a bit more realistic, however at the end of the day, it's nowhere near real.In reality, though, a two-inch long bladed pen knife is just as deadly as a six foot long sword. Get hit with either and without immediate medical attention, you're probably going to die.Weapons didn't become longer and bigger to become more deadly, it simply isn't necessary, we're very fragile. Crack a skull with a 1kg hammer head is just as deadly as swinging a 10kg one. So why carry all that weight? Historically, maces were pretty small and were mostly used from horseback, because the force behind a horse-driven blow was enough to kill anyone in a single hit. Lances weren't about single-kills, they were about driving a stake through a shield wall and killing a dozen people behind it. Bigger swords and polearms came about as means to get around defences and mostly armour.So if I was to do anything, it would be to flip the bonuses to hit. I'd go from +1 to +3. Daggers and other light weapons would have a +1 whereas claymores and the like would get a +3. In a system like this the amount of damage done becomes almost irrelevant, it's about whether or not an attack hits, and the fact is a dagger is less likely to damage someone than a greatsword is, especially when armour is taken into account, but also to some extent dodging a dagger is easier than dodging a greatsword, no matter what the movies tell you.</blockquote>

Verification