Monk unarmed damage question

[Sejs]

I can see where you're coming from, ARG. The problem there primarily lies with how the dice scale from one category to the next, and with the fact that a monk's unarmed damage goes up with experience. Every other weapon in D&D has a set damage range that is a constant based on its mass. To apply that same logic to the monk, though, just doesn't work - it would be like the monk becomes more massive as they learn; to that end monks are the exception rather than the rule.

This was done on purpose, to illustrate the difference in equal force applied to a concentrated area.

Right, nah but if you're applying dissimilar objects in dissimilar ways it opens up entirely different doors. Things like how blunt force trauma is more damaging to tissue, while a chopping injury is more inimical to life because it does things like sever blood vessels and opens organs more easily. But a sword cut isn't going to pulverize a bone, and a cut organ is much easier for the body to repair than a ruptured or blown appart one. If the criteria get too far appart, comparison just becomes pointless - a magnet is made of iron, but a lobster has a beak.

I still say a halfling can use a human sized dagger, whereas I have no problem thinking that the halfling would need a specially resized greatsword

Yeah, I really didn't like the "Oh, a halfling can't use a human shortsword, it's too different from a halfling longsword. Oh, but a bastard sword and a katana have the same stats so they use the same proficiency." Struck me as lazy and lame.

On the halfling greatsword thing? The way I did it - a human's bastard sword was a halfling's greatsword. And a human's longsword was a halfling's bastard sword.

 

[Scion]

halfling str 16 light load 57lbs
human str 12 light load 43lbs
halfogre str 8 light load 52lbs

The halfling and the halfogre (what does a ling look like anyway?) are probably swinging those fists about the same speed, as their relative strenths are about the same (your own body weight is effectively negligable for carrying in this example as d&d ignores this for carry capacity).

So, the halfogre is swinging something roughly the mass of the halfling with the same ease as the halfling is swinging something much, much lighter.

KE = 1/2 m*v^2, roughly the same velocities and the halfogre would outdamage by far.

now, of course this fails to take into account a great deal of other things. Which your example also ignored.

Remember, it isnt all about how much damage each hit can do, but what the average damage against a certain AC can do.

Taking this into account (which in the real world is about things that arent easily quantifyable in d&d terms, so we will just go by with what it has) the halfing has a +4 to hit modifier over the halfogre.

This means that against, say, AC 15 it looks something like this:
halfling
+3 str vs AC 15 = 45% chance of hitting
avg damage = 8*.45= 3.6

halfogre
-1 str vs AC 15 = 25% chance of hitting
avg damage = 10*.25 = 2.5 (and this is rounding up)

So, overall the halfogre hits for much less. Sure, each hit that does connect does slightly more, but it hits much less often.

Between the two the d&d system tries to simulate something useful in the real world.

The carrying capacities of the halfling 16 str and the halfogre 8 str are about the same, the halfogres hits will do more damage when they connect (mainly from the sheer mass of the halfogre) but will connect much less often (for whatever reasons).

When the system as a whole it really does start to simulate the real world in a few useful ways. Each individual part may be too abstract to really feel is useful, but the entirety does come somewhat close on occasion

 

[ARandomGod]

halfling str 16 light load 57lbs
human str 12 light load 43lbs
halfogre str 8 light load 52lbs

The halfling and the halfogre (what does a ling look like anyway?) are probably swinging those fists about the same speed, as their relative strenths are about the same (your own body weight is effectively negligable for carrying in this example as d&d ignores this for carry capacity).

So, the halfogre is swinging something roughly the mass of the halfling with the same ease as the halfling is swinging something much, much lighter.

KE = 1/2 m*v^2, roughly the same velocities and the halfogre would outdamage by far.

now, of course this fails to take into account a great deal of other things. Which your example also ignored.

Remember, it isnt all about how much damage each hit can do, but what the average damage against a certain AC can do.

Taking this into account (which in the real world is about things that arent easily quantifyable in d&d terms, so we will just go by with what it has) the halfing has a +4 to hit modifier over the halfogre.

This means that against, say, AC 15 it looks something like this:
halfling
+3 str vs AC 15 = 45% chance of hitting
avg damage = 8*.45= 3.6

halfogre
-1 str vs AC 15 = 25% chance of hitting
avg damage = 10*.25 = 2.5 (and this is rounding up)

So, overall the halfogre hits for much less. Sure, each hit that does connect does slightly more, but it hits much less often.

Between the two the d&d system tries to simulate something useful in the real world.

The carrying capacities of the halfling 16 str and the halfogre 8 str are about the same, the halfogres hits will do more damage when they connect (mainly from the sheer mass of the halfogre) but will connect much less often (for whatever reasons).

When the system as a whole it really does start to simulate the real world in a few useful ways. Each individual part may be too abstract to really feel is useful, but the entirety does come somewhat close on occasion

All interesting stats. And a good point about the halfling hitting more often.

I still think that it's a bad way to handle this, and that it deals with this in a bad way. But that's what house rules are for, right? Id just seems "wrong" that a 16 means an 8 means a 12.5, but not iff...

I was thinking at lunch that I'd do it by giving the different size catagory creatures a written out circumstance penalty to strength. It would do everything and be more even across the different damage die catagories.

Of course, we all realize that a half - ogre with an 8 strength would be in serious trouble compared to a human with 8 strength. On the other hand, half ogres get +6 to strength, so that would be a roll of 2 on 3d6, so even using the method that could result in the lowest half ogre strength it STILL couldn't be that weak. ... and would best be comparted to a human with 2 strength. Which would also be something in trouble. And, interestingly enough, leads me back to my other point with this, which is that this hidden strength penalty/bonus is so hidden that the larger creatures often get the bonus twice, once for BEING big (hidden strength bonus) and a second time because they're so big (authors giving a bonus to strength based on size). WHereas if the bonus/penalty were written out, it could be better seen, and better accounted for when making creatures. Which would be a bonus on top of the fact that it would just be simpler.

IF you remember, there were always tables for weapon damage small/medium.large. But it used to represent the damage done AGAINST such creatures. And hence a small creature took less damage from a sword stroke, not dealt less damage with a sword stroke. I use this to support an additional point of mine, which is that the authors simply didn't really look very closely at the tables, and wanted big things to to more damage (Because they're BIG), while forgetting that they already do more damage because they get more strength (because they're BIG).

I think that large size grants too many bonuses in the current system, and small sized things are hyper penalized. OK, maybe I didn't have to say that, it's pretty obviously my opinion, isn't it?


PS, a "ling" looks like a hobbit, but with less liability.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

So, if weapon damage ought to depend only on the strength used to propel the weapon, then a greatsword and a longsword ought to do the same damage when swung by the same character.

Right?

 

[Lamoni]

I just thought about this again and had another idea or way of looking at it. If you had to chop wood, you could have a wide assortment of axes at your disposal. The smallest axe wouldn't really work well. As the axe got larger, the easier it would be to chop wood with it... until you got to a size that was too large to use effectively (even if you could easily lift it based on strength).

Now let a giant with the same strength choose his axe. He would choose a larger one because he would have larger hands and a larger frame. The larger axe would actually be more effective.

I still think that part of the difference is based on strength as a hidden strength modifier, but maybe that is already absorbed into the equation since it takes a larger strength to lift and use the larger weapon. The larger damage die is because larger more massive things actually do more damage.

With the unarmed attacks, it is similar. As your fist grows, it gets much more massive and able to hurt more. Like using a rock to hit someone. If you pick up a small rock to smash against someone's face it'll hurt, but not as much as smashing a small boulder.

Just think about ways in how it can make sense. At first thought it makes sense that larger people/weapons hurt more. I fully expect a club from a colossal creature (a full grown tree) to hurt more than a club from a large ogre (even if the ogre is capable of lifting the tree, it would be too awkward to weild).

 

[ARandomGod]

So, if weapon damage ought to depend only on the strength used to propel the weapon, then a greatsword and a longsword ought to do the same damage when swung by the same character.

Right?

No, but if the lonsword picked up two different characters,, it should be able to do the same damage with each, assuming they were configured similiarly, of course.

Or, to say, a halfling who picks up a human sized "dagger" should be able to use it, and do a full d4 points of damage with it, no problem.

A halfling who picks up that longsword should be able to use it just fine, although he should do MORE damage with it than a human with the same strength, because he should have to use two hands, and therefore should get strength and a half.

On the other hand, same strength or no, the human is probably gonna do more damage with a human sized greatsword. I mean, the halfling tried, but it was just sad.

Actually, if you go through and read my points, I was mainly pointing out that the small sized character gets a hidden, variable strength penalty... and I think that it should instead be a non hidden, non variable penalty.

 

[ARandomGod]

I just thought about this again and had another idea or way of looking at it. If you had to chop wood, you could have a wide assortment of axes at your disposal. The smallest axe wouldn't really work well. As the axe got larger, the easier it would be to chop wood with it... until you got to a size that was too large to use effectively (even if you could easily lift it based on strength).

Now let a giant with the same strength choose his axe. He would choose a larger one because he would have larger hands and a larger frame. The larger axe would actually be more effective.

I still think that part of the difference is based on strength as a hidden strength modifier, but maybe that is already absorbed into the equation since it takes a larger strength to lift and use the larger weapon. The larger damage die is because larger more massive things actually do more damage.

With the unarmed attacks, it is similar. As your fist grows, it gets much more massive and able to hurt more. Like using a rock to hit someone. If you pick up a small rock to smash against someone's face it'll hurt, but not as much as smashing a small boulder.

Just think about ways in how it can make sense. At first thought it makes sense that larger people/weapons hurt more. I fully expect a club from a colossal creature (a full grown tree) to hurt more than a club from a large ogre (even if the ogre is capable of lifting the tree, it would be too awkward to weild).

Oh, I fully agree with that. And I would be more than happy if that were the actual rule. That would make sense.

What doesn't make sense is that the halfling would pick up a smaller weapon, when he doesn't need to for strength/maneuverability.

Now, in many cases the way it's written is fine.
A human shortsword does the same damage as a halfling longsword. Makes sense. On the other hand, really, it's constructed identically too, and the halfling cannot use the human shortsword effectively (He'd take -4). Doesn't make sense.

A "bullet" for a sling is very small. Yet, for some reason, a halfling theoretically picks up even smaller stones than this to throw, even though there is no relative size or strength reason.

Sure, larger damage die makes more sense in many cases. I just don't think that there's any reason that the character can't use adequately a human sized dagger or shortsword, even if the character is small. Of course, it makes sense that they'd need a specially made greatsword, and that this would do less damage.

The monk's fist part, on the other hand, doesn't make as much sense. Sure, they get better as they learn to hit more accurately. So then. How, exactly, is a fist the size of your face going to be more accurate than one that can easily punch through your eye and into your brain?

I mean, the big guy should do more damage, on the other hand, the big guy should be stronger, too.
He hits your entire back doing strength damage. He's learned to more accurately hit the center of the back. The little guy, on the other hand, has learned to hit more accurately, and punches in, actually crushing your kidney. I just don't think that the big guy should be doing double damage, even at level 20. He's NOT using a different weapon. ... Well, ok, he is using that big fist I meantioned. But he certainly hasn't learned to be that much more accurate with it.