D&D 5E Older editions weapon damage size modifiers--anyone remember why?

[Zardnaar]

The reasoning I thought of as a youth when reading the weapon tables in the 2nd edition PHB was simple; to create a "right kind of weapon for the job" situation. Big weapons are best for big enemies, but smaller weapons work fine for smaller enemies.

Though later 2nd edition sort of turned that around on me by having the optional critical tables make bigger weapons better for critical hits no matter what sort of enemy you were facing, but especially if the monster was a smaller size category than your weapon.

I kind of liked the weapon rules in combat and tactics as they errated a few of them and large weapons often sucked in AD&D due to being very slow.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I kind of liked the weapon rules in combat and tactics as they errated a few of them and large weapons often sucked in AD&D due to being very slow.

The Player's Option era of rules was my absolute favorite version of D&D right up until 5th edition narrowly managed to usurp the throne (by no one in my current group having a "Yeah, I'm just not going to learn it" response to 5th).

Being able to fine-tune a campaign by engaging different optional rules found right there in the books is fantastic.

 

[Zardnaar]

The Player's Option era of rules was my absolute favorite version of D&D right up until 5th edition narrowly managed to usurp the throne (by no one in my current group having a "Yeah, I'm just not going to learn it" response to 5th).

Being able to fine-tune a campaign by engaging different optional rules found right there in the books is fantastic.

I liked them and BiTD tried a few out. Even at the tender age of 18 though we figured out a few things one should not use such as the sub abilities and point buy class design. Used on occasion yeah fine under the players control not so much.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Used on occasion yeah fine under the players control not so much.

You know, I've had players that would abuse things and then end up not enjoying the experience, but that's not most players in my experience.

Most players can be trusted not to ruin the game for themselves.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Supposedly Mike Mornard ("Gronan of Simmerya" and "The Old Geezer" on various rpg messageboards) suggested the idea variable weapon damage to EGG while they were playing OD&D, and it made it into the Greyhawk supplement. That's one of two ideas he claims as his own (the other being the gelatenous cube). He has not made mention of himself being part of the actual designing of the weapons, or why they are split into S-M and L+ (I personally suspect that any published explanation is likely after-the-fact justification and that the real reasons are lost to time).

Yes, as the editions changed the weapons got very unbalanced. Longer weapons were supposed to be able to get first hit on people trying to advance on the pikemen with daggers. The Weapon Vs. Armor table was supposed to benefit otherwise low-weapon damage. Swords were supposed to be 'just plain better' since only fighters (and eventually thieves, who frankly could use all the help they can get) were the only classes who could use magical swords (and thus it was a balancing factor). By the time 2e rolled around, a lot of it was just leftover legacy material and highly unbalanced.

 

[Blue]

I think, like the weapon vs. type of armor table and weapon speed, it was a combination of attempted realism plus something to differentiate weapons. It does seem like the type of thing that someone comfortable with wargaming like the designers and early players would enjoy when their focus is brought down to a single character that might otherwise be "too simple".

But that's all conjecture.

 

[flametitan]

Supposedly Mike Mornard ("Gronan of Simmerya" and "The Old Geezer" on various rpg messageboards) suggested the idea variable weapon damage to EGG while they were playing OD&D, and it made it into the Greyhawk supplement. That's one of two ideas he claims as his own (the other being the gelatenous cube). He has not made mention of himself being part of the actual designing of the weapons, or why they are split into S-M and L+ (I personally suspect that any published explanation is likely after-the-fact justification and that the real reasons are lost to time).

Yes, as the editions changed the weapons got very unbalanced. Longer weapons were supposed to be able to get first hit on people trying to advance on the pikemen with daggers. The Weapon Vs. Armor table was supposed to benefit otherwise low-weapon damage. Swords were supposed to be 'just plain better' since only fighters (and eventually thieves, who frankly could use all the help they can get) were the only classes who could use magical swords (and thus it was a balancing factor). By the time 2e rolled around, a lot of it was just leftover legacy material and highly unbalanced.

I remember hearing that it was a joint effort by Kuntz and Mornard to petition Gygax to add it. I also think he was the person who suggested acid spitting giant slugs, rather than the cube.

Otherwise this sounds about in line with what I've read and the relatively few times D&D actually cribbed off chainmail (the weapons vs armour adjustments is straight up mentioned to have come from chainmail).

EDIT: Also, as I read it, variable weapon damage was less about realism itself and more about his players asking "Why are we all using Iron Spikes? When was the last time you read a conan story where he used Iron Spikes because they were a dozen per gold?"

 

[ccs]

I seem to remember reading the reasoning of bigger weapons affecting more area of a target in some early (to me) issue of dragon. I started reading Dragon in '82. And I knew the reasoning going into my high school years. So whatever issue #s would've come out between '82-'84.?

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I miss the weapon vs armour adjustments. I miss pulling out a mace or sword or pick depending on the target.

I don't remember the maths at the table being annoying at all, but I suspect that might be rose-tinted sunglasses memory.

 

[Helldritch]

I miss the weapon vs armour adjustments. I miss pulling out a mace or sword or pick depending on the target.

I don't remember the maths at the table being annoying at all, but I suspect that might be rose-tinted sunglasses memory.

I quite remember the maths but I do have the rose-tinted sunglasses myself.

Variable dmg, speed factor and penalties/bonuses vs AC types were not only an attempt at realism but also to help to vary weapon type used in different games. It was supposed to help have a variation but in reality, only a few weapons were really great. Why take a saber when a short sword was better in every way? Why take a broadsword when the long sword was doing better dmg and was better at medium and heavy ac types?

The variable damage was better to decide which weapon to choose but even then, some were better than others. The only thing we still have from the past is damage type. Blunt, Piercing and Slashing. And even these are slowly disapearing in their usage. Skellies are no longer taking only half damage from piercing.
(but I added that back in )
Blunt and slash immunities are almost a thing of the past now. Maybe in some future monster supplements...

The only thing I miss are the speed factors. A long sword is faster to swing than a two handed sword. That same long sword is slower that the short sword etc...

Now the weapon you use is only a question of style/look. I'm fine with that as it helps diversity but at the cost of realism. D&D is no longuer a simulation. It is now story telling.

On second thought, I prefer the way it is now.