Why is bigger always better?

[Janx]

No Doubt! Shields were used because they worked! Seriously, to be more realistic, shields should have bonuses more akin to wearing Plate.



Yeah, that's been one of those carry-over mistakes that D&D has kept around. Back during AD&D or earlier (IIRC) it was noted that weapon weights included the scabard, baldric, etc. - not just the weapon (at least that's what I was always told when I started playing AD&D 2E - but I don't have those books anymore to find the reference). The weapon weights have carried over through 3E. 3.5E, and 4E mostly unchanged, but the note that the weight includes these things didn't make the trip.

In my stick fighting days as a teenager, I was the only one who had a shield (made of an aluminum disc sled). Comparitively speaking, I never got hit. I even held off 2 other fighters. From my guesstimate, with actual swords and actual shields and actual skilled sword fighting, I'd rather have a shield than nothing.

In my 2E days, scabbards were sold seperately in the PH. I suspect weapons had inflated weights (just as they do in videogames) as some sort of atttempt at game balance through inventory space costs.

On the 10lb sword thing, i was exagerating. But the point is, for an experienced big man who is swinging his favorite big weapon, the weight is trivial because they've got the muscles and practice to make it so.

Ignoring polearms, versus an immoble target, it should be pretty obvious that a bigger weapon does more physicial damage. The weight and leverage that can be applied makes it easier to pierce, slash and smash the target.

Polearms are wierd, because the interesting part is on the end of the stick. Once you are past that, the weapon's value is limited. Wheras, even a big sword is useful when you're closer in (but not hugging me yet).

The stereotype of big lumbering guy with a big lumbering weapon is to illustrate some point that the little guy can win. A smart fighter doesn't over-extend himself. Thus, he never takes such a swing that he cannot recover to protect himself from a counter move. By not over-extending himself, the big guy with a big weapon will still deal more powerful blows than the little guy with the little weapon.

I'm sure there's some boundary, where the weapon is too big for the wielder, and at that point it would be less effective (the lumbering effect). But a properly designed weapon, even the larger weapons tends to scale up.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In my 2E days, scabbards were sold seperately in the PH. I suspect weapons had inflated weights (just as they do in videogames) as some sort of atttempt at game balance through inventory space costs.

Somewhere circa '82, I read something by one of the grand pooh bahs of 1E that encumbrance was meant to be a combination of actual weight and bulk. I think it was in Dragon about that time, and used a big bag of feathers as an example of something light but nevertheless encumbering. Then going back to the PHB and DMG, I found subtle confirmation of this in some passing remarks. At least I think that is how the idea got into my head, but in any case, it was clear to all of us playing then that this was the intention of encumbrance--and the whole reason for having an "encumbrance" total instead of a "weight" total.

The accompanying remarks did indeed get dropped from later versions, and the emphasis moved slowly to "weight"--without anyone, apparently, much reconsidering what this meant. Though someone did a bit, because the weight generally dropped--just not enough.

 

[El Mahdi]

In my 2E days, scabbards were sold seperately in the PH.

Found my copies of the 1E and 2E PHB's, and I'm not finding a listing for scabbards (or sheaths, baldrics, etc.) though quivers are listed seperately from bows.

But, I also couldn't find anything backing up what I said earlier either. Though @Crazy Jerome is right about the encumbrance concepts. I did find the comments in the 1E PHB about the "20 pounds of feathers" being bulky when the book is talking about encumbrance.

The only thing that comes close to what I was looking for, is that in the 3E PHB under "Cost", it says:

3E PHB, pg. 97
Cost: This is the weapon's cost in gold pieces (gp) or silver pieces (sp). The cost includes miscellaneous gear that goes with the weapon, such as a scabbard for a sword or a quiver for arrows.

So, it can be assumed when you buy a sword, it includes the scabbard, belt, baldric (for large swords worn on the back), etc. - and that the weight listed includes all of this (as the weight isn't listed for using the weapon, but determining encumbrance for carrying purposes).

However, the 4E PHB does not mention this at all under either cost or weight.

But all of that being said, even if you take into account the weight of miscellaneous gear that goes with the weapon, many of the listed D&D weapon weights are still waaaaayyyyy off.

A bit of a sidetrack from the OP, but just clearing a few things up.

 

[Janx]

Found my copies of the 1E and 2E PHB's, and I'm not finding a listing for scabbards (or sheaths, baldrics, etc.) though quivers are listed seperately from bows.

Original 2E PH (not the reprint)

page 66, last column, under Table 44:
knife sheath 3cp

continuing onto page 67, same table
sword scabbard, hanger, baldric 4gp.


2E basically itemized a lot of stuff.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Bigger is better in game weapons for the same reason that an amplifier that goes to 11 is more desirable.

Also, I don't want girls laughing at how small my weapon is...

 

[Deuce Traveler]

Gary Gygax once said in a thread (I believe here) that he once considered removing damage variations entirely from melee weapons. As he studied he came to believe that weapons used mattered less than skill and familiarity. Besides, an inch of steel in the gut kills, whether or not from a knife or a sword.

Personally, I've always enjoyed bigger busts on women and firing larger guns. Ever since it has followed that for me, bigger the better.

 

[Votan]

Does it?

Think, for a moment - do you think Medieval and Renaissance generals and soldiers equipped based upon some theory, or upon the practice of hundreds of years of warfare?

Real battlefields are the ultimate in Darwinian scenarios for real-world weaponry. Given how many have lived and died by weapon and armor choice, it would seem these are the best available source for empirical data on the effectiveness of weapons and armors.

On a real battlefield, a dagger is extremely useful - for when you've dropped that guy in heavy armor to the ground, and need something to stick between the joints between plates when he's down. Otherwise, not so useful.

This perspective seems to argue that the weapon with the incorrect amount of damage is the spear (pike, lance) as it seems to be popular as a battlefield weapon in all times and places (even exists today as the bayonet mounted on a rifle).

 

[Neonchameleon]

This perspective seems to argue that the weapon with the incorrect amount of damage is the spear (pike, lance) as it seems to be popular as a battlefield weapon in all times and places (even exists today as the bayonet mounted on a rifle).

Pikes are fine as they stand. They are a specialised reach weapon and would rule the battlefield even if they only do dagger damage. A single pikeman is dead meat - but the way pikes work is simple. In each 5ft square, there are about two pikemen abreast by three deep. Standing behind them is a further square full of two pikemen abreast by three deep. This means that if you want to get into reach even with an ordinary reach weapon like a spear or halberd you need to have threaded your way quite literally past a dozen pikeheads (the Spanish Tercios were 10 men deep rather than the 6 I present here). It's effectively a focus fire and reach issue - you need a lot of pikemen to make them worthwhile but when they are there's not much that can stand up to them.

Spears are effectively shorter pikes. Again you can cram more spearpoints into a narrower space further away than you can other weapons. They weren't great single combat weapons - but you hit first with them and by the time the swordsmen were in reach, so was the second rank of the shieldwall.

 

[Zaran]

I actually think that 4e has done the best job in making smaller weapons more useful. The rogue does wonders with a Dagger now. Tempests can take smaller weapons and do comparable damage as those with larger weapons. And now even Clerics get a build where Simple Weapons are comparable to superiors.

 

[Janx]

I actually think that 4e has done the best job in making smaller weapons more useful. The rogue does wonders with a Dagger now. Tempests can take smaller weapons and do comparable damage as those with larger weapons. And now even Clerics get a build where Simple Weapons are comparable to superiors.

In 3e, I played a halfling rogue and we ended up in published module that that required me to sneak in, and kill the boss or the alarm would be set off, summoning demons and the end of the world. Everything went great as my fellowe players sat around for an hour while I snuck and climbed and got into his bedroom. Where I figured out the logistics of the rules made it impossible for me to win. a low level hafling making a coup de gras with a dagger just doesn't have a chance to inflict enough damage to kill, even though we know in real life your kids could slit your throat while you slept.

Doing the math 1d3x2 + #D6 seems pretty generous. I just remember being in the actual situation, and eyeballing my chances, and realized that even with max damage, It still wasn't a lot of damage for what i guessed the BBEG's leve would be. For a nobody NPC, that might have been lethal enough and a human sized PC rogue.