Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JDJblatherings" data-source="post: 4236028" data-attributes="member: 52044">once upon a time all weapons in D&amp;D inflicted 1d6 of damage. &nbsp;There were at least&nbsp; two combat charts in use the man to man chart (from chainmail) that took into consideration differences between weapons and armors and the flat &quot;alternative combat' (which almost everyone used).&nbsp; then a supplement called greyhawk came out.&nbsp; some weapons did more damage, some weapons did less damage.&nbsp; fighters got a wider range of weaponas that had a wider range of damage scores (certainyl against large critters) other characters had smaller ramge of weapons that geenrally didnt' do as much damage.&nbsp; at the tiem all 1st level pcs fought just as well so Fighters got an edge with weaposn that inflicted mroe damage that other couldnt use. D&amp;d combat is abstract and the orignal combat rounds were long, hitting could be multiple blows not just one so a wepaosn damage ratign really indicated how much damage it was likely to inflict over the course of a round.AD&amp;D used pretty much the same setup with slight rejiggering of numbers. Fghter classes still got weapons that did more damage. 3e widened the rage of choices availabel to all sorts of characters but the martial types still generally got the advantage of using more weapons that did more damage without havign to invest extra feats to do so.&nbsp; In truth any single weapon blow can kill a normal man. What makes a weapon differnt from another is it's opportunity to wound you, how quickly you can bash someone again, how likely you are to penetrate armor.&nbsp; The D&amp;D method dos this well soemoen armed with a dagger (doing 1d4)&nbsp; has muich less opportunity to damage someone then a person armed with a longsword (1d8) does. a host of variables can be covered by weapons having different damage ratings.&nbsp;&nbsp; Some weapons are better then other ones. Real people seldom went into battle with a weapon for &quot;flavor reasons&quot; they wanted the most effective weapon their skills would allow them to use on the battle field.&nbsp;&nbsp; I recall no historical account of legions of knife fighters but plenty of people all over the world used spears and pikes. The spear gave one reach of course but also increased the opportunities one would have to harm the other; thus a higher damage rating when compared to a dagger.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JDJblatherings, post: 4236028, member: 52044"] once upon a time all weapons in D&D inflicted 1d6 of damage. There were at least two combat charts in use the man to man chart (from chainmail) that took into consideration differences between weapons and armors and the flat "alternative combat' (which almost everyone used). then a supplement called greyhawk came out. some weapons did more damage, some weapons did less damage. fighters got a wider range of weaponas that had a wider range of damage scores (certainyl against large critters) other characters had smaller ramge of weapons that geenrally didnt' do as much damage. at the tiem all 1st level pcs fought just as well so Fighters got an edge with weaposn that inflicted mroe damage that other couldnt use. D&d combat is abstract and the orignal combat rounds were long, hitting could be multiple blows not just one so a wepaosn damage ratign really indicated how much damage it was likely to inflict over the course of a round. AD&D used pretty much the same setup with slight rejiggering of numbers. Fghter classes still got weapons that did more damage. 3e widened the rage of choices availabel to all sorts of characters but the martial types still generally got the advantage of using more weapons that did more damage without havign to invest extra feats to do so. In truth any single weapon blow can kill a normal man. What makes a weapon differnt from another is it's opportunity to wound you, how quickly you can bash someone again, how likely you are to penetrate armor. The D&D method dos this well soemoen armed with a dagger (doing 1d4) has muich less opportunity to damage someone then a person armed with a longsword (1d8) does. a host of variables can be covered by weapons having different damage ratings. Some weapons are better then other ones. Real people seldom went into battle with a weapon for "flavor reasons" they wanted the most effective weapon their skills would allow them to use on the battle field. I recall no historical account of legions of knife fighters but plenty of people all over the world used spears and pikes. The spear gave one reach of course but also increased the opportunities one would have to harm the other; thus a higher damage rating when compared to a dagger. [/QUOTE]

Verification