D&D 5E Pet Peeve: Weapon Weights

[Reynard]

 

[ezo]

ARISE DREAD THREAD - YOU'VE BEEN NECROED from over a decade ago!

thanks for the comments, I've been having issue with , as I find it hard to believe, that a mace in did weighing 4 pounds, only does a D6 where as a longsword, which supposedly weighs 3 does a D8 how the hell is that possible, you'd think those numbers were reversed, as the heavier weapon should in theory do more damage.

Welcome to the forums!

Although heavier, maces are shorter, generating a bit less "force" when swung. The longsword's blade is long ( ), and a swing moves the edge (particularly the second half towards the tip) with incredible speed, which helps generate its force despite being lighter in weight. Since the entire blade (or most of it) is sharp, there is more area to make contact with as well. With the mace, unless you make contact with the head, it is less effective.

Finally, although bludgeoning damage can be lethal, the cutting of a blade can more easily penetrate to hit vital organs, even severing limbs.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

If realistic weapon weights aren't working well with the encumbrance system, they should fix the encumbrance system. Making weapons unrealistically heavy is an absurd solution.

Saying a person can carry 200 throwing axes at 1 pound each, without being encumbered, is also weird.

I don't know any system that handles encumbrance perfectly, respecting both volume and weight, while keeping it simple. I'll just go with what they print (hoping they tidy it up a bit) because in the long run it is one of the most inconsequential aspects of the game to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

Wow, this is an old one!

thanks for the comments, I've been having issue with , as I find it hard to believe, that a mace in did weighing 4 pounds, only does a D6 where as a longsword, which supposedly weighs 3 does a D8 how the hell is that possible, you'd think those numbers were reversed, as the heavier weapon should in theory do more damage.

Not really. In real life, the damage done by a strike with a weapon depends on how efficiently it delivers force to a vulnerable spot on the body. Force equals mass times acceleration, so while a heavier weapon may have more mass, that doesn’t necessarily translate to more force if you can’t accelerate it as quickly. Most medieval melee weapons weighed around 3 to 4 pounds - yes, even big two-handed swords, which have very thin blades compared to smaller swords. There were of course exceptions, and how that weight is distributed also has an impact. But, as a general rule of thumb, 3 to 4 pounds is pretty much the optimal weight to get the most striking force for a melee weapon operated purely by human muscle power. Obviously for fictional character with superhuman strength, it would be a different story.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If realistic weapon weights aren't working well with the encumbrance system, they should fix the encumbrance system. Making weapons unrealistically heavy is an absurd solution.

Or jettison it into deep space.

I vote for that one.

 

[Reynard]

Or jettison it into deep space.

I vote for that one.

For a game about going into holes to locate and retrieve valuables, some sort of inventory system makes sense.

Buy the last thing it needs to be is "realistic." It should serve the gameplay purposes of that retrieval.

 

[Ryujin]

I think something like an encumbrance points system, perhaps coupled with the "slots" system that some editions used for magic items, might be an ideal solution. The proverbial "golf bag full of swords" should just never happen, short of a bag of holding or portable hole. (In the old 1e campaign that I played in, more than 40 years ago, I turned a portable hole into essentially a weapons locker.)

 

[Reynard]

I think something like an encumbrance points system, perhaps coupled with the "slots" system that some editions used for magic items, might be an ideal solution. The proverbial "golf bag full of swords" should just never happen, short of a bag of holding or portable hole. (In the old 1e campaign that I played in, more than 40 years ago, I turned a portable hole into essentially a weapons locker.)

Shadowdark's system works pretty well, as does 5 Torches Deep.

 

[TheSword]

I think something like an encumbrance points system, perhaps coupled with the "slots" system that some editions used for magic items, might be an ideal solution. The proverbial "golf bag full of swords" should just never happen, short of a bag of holding or portable hole. (In the old 1e campaign that I played in, more than 40 years ago, I turned a portable hole into essentially a weapons locker.)

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4e’s encumbrance uses points and is very good. Easy to track and actually matters. Capacity as a function of Strength with items being worth 1, 2, or 3 points. Clothing and armour uses one point less if worn rather than carried because you’re spreading the load out. Talents like strong back let you carry more without bumping strength.

It would be very easy to port to D&D.

 

[Ryujin]

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4e’s encumbrance uses points and is very good. Easy to track and actually matters. Capacity as a function of Strength with items being worth 1, 2, or 3 points. Clothing and armour uses one point less if worn rather than carried because you’re spreading the load out. Talents like strong back let you carry more without bumping strength.

It would be very easy to port to D&D.

And as someone who has made chainmail (in stainless steel no less), I can say with some certainty that even armour, when worn, doesn't have as much of an effect as when carried. If it makes any sense the way that the weight is distributed makes you move with more authority.