Realistic Weapon Damage

Roman

First Post
Suppose we wanted to simulate realistic weapon damage and ignoring the fact that weapons cause specific injuries rather than a general deterioration of health, I wonder what how much damage should various weapons do?

Let's make the following baseline assumption: An average healthy adult (but not elderly) human has 4 humanoid hit dice (hence 4d8 hit points) and a constitution score generated by the 3d6 method

Assuming the above, how much damage should a dagger do? How about a sword or a bow? How about unarmed combat? How about other weapons?

Why do you think these numbers are 'realistic'?

Note: This is more a theoretical exercise than anything else. While it may help somebody in weapon design, implementing it wholesale would change D&D balance too much and in any case, my baseline assumptions do not necessarily mesh with D&D.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


actually, the current RAW is pretty accurate.

the average noncombatant human has 1d4 HD, meaning an average of 2 hit points. A dagger used by the average noncombatant human deals 1-4 damage. Meaning that on a hit that matters, there's a 50 percent chance that once the attacker has struck a meaningful blow, the victim falls to the ground, and starts bleeding to death. This seems realistic to me.

This also means that fistfights between people not trained in fighting are resolved in 2-4 successful, hard punches or kicks. Once again, this is pretty damned realistic.
 

(speaking from a medical perspective)

Llamatron is right. Even assuming the average healthy adult has 4 hp, a dagger is still enough to put them at or near dying in 1-2 hits.

The damage amounts are accurate, the healing amounts are not...
 

The hit point system is inherently flawed for portraying realism. As was discussed in a recent thread in the General Discussion forum I believe.

I'd write more (or fine the link) but I should really be working on my midterm.
 


Why would I think those numbers are realistic?

Pick a number A. This represents the amount damage an ordinary human can tolerate. It is a realistic. Or perhaps not. What age is the "ordinary human". What other medical conditions is that person suffering from? How fit are they? How active were they growing up? What foods do they eat? What unhealthy habits do they have (drugs, cigarettes, smoking). What kind of trauma are they going to experience?

Stabbing a fit human male multiple times in the hand will cause lots of pain, mental anguish, yet is hardly likely on its own to cause immediate death, no matter how many times you stab.

How much "damage" is a bucket of water going to cause? How about drowning?

Why worry? KISS.
 

green slime said:
Why would I think those numbers are realistic?

Pick a number A. This represents the amount damage an ordinary human can tolerate. It is a realistic. Or perhaps not. What age is the "ordinary human". What other medical conditions is that person suffering from? How fit are they? How active were they growing up? What foods do they eat? What unhealthy habits do they have (drugs, cigarettes, smoking). What kind of trauma are they going to experience?

Stabbing a fit human male multiple times in the hand will cause lots of pain, mental anguish, yet is hardly likely on its own to cause immediate death, no matter how many times you stab.

How much "damage" is a bucket of water going to cause? How about drowning?

Why worry? KISS.
Ack! Greem slime is a dire postmodernist!!11
 


If you wanted to model reality then anything that could be considered a weapon would do 1 D infinity...

Honestly, all it takes is one good whack from anything potentially dangerous to kill someone. Have a hammer? Knock a vertibrae out of alignment severing their spinal nerves and wait. Have a (titanium) spork? A good jab to the left or right side of the neck renders them at -1 HP, just wait. The same could be said for most weapons.
 

Remove ads

Top