Why is bigger always better?

[Dausuul]

A dagger in the neck will kill them just as dead as being fully decapitated by a greataxe.

But it won't kill you anywhere near as fast. If you get lethally stabbed in the neck, there's every chance you can kill your attacker before you bleed out. If you get your head chopped off, that's the end of it, unless you're a creepy monk with a red lightning sword.

 

[mmadsen]

You simply must watch the knife nerds of Cold Steel demonstrate what their great sword can do.

 

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

This thought process is boiled down into all manners of things, including velocity, mass, force, design, reach, speed of use, strength of the weapon, the type of damage being dealt, etc etc. This creates a large amount of aspects and variables to consider while designing a system.

Therefore, to simplify, a weapon can be given a simple "weapon effectiveness" number. In the OMEN system, accuracy and damage are along the same continuum of weapon effectiveness, a weapon that is highly likely to hit is also more likely to deal damage.

A character who is extremely skilled or lucky with a simple weapon, like a basic stick or dagger, rolls very high on the accuracy scale will do more damage than someone who wields the proverbial fullblade who can almost never hit. The amount that the attack (and by extension effectiveness) supersedes the defense of the target equates the amount of damage applied to that target.

This keeps things fast, simple, and slightly more realistic than D&D.

 

[Kzach]

One thing that seems to pop up in everyone's comments is reach. That's certainly a big factor in fighting. It's a shame it can't be represented easily in systems. D&D of course suffers from being miniatures based and the assumption of a 5' cube of MINE not YOURS.

If we were to equate D&D squares to real-life, then all opponents would effectively have 8' gaps between them. I'm not sure that accurately represents real combat situations. In MMA, opponents have scoring and time limits and the only thing they lose, is the bout. In these situations they are constantly attacking and backing away. But in all the fights I've been in or witnessed, even those with knives or baseball bats, once it gets up and close and personal, it becomes more of a wrestling match than a feint and dodge battle.

When your life is on the line, you're not going to back up to give your opponent with a sword an advantage. Once you're under his guard, assuming you can get there without dying, you're going to stay there and get stabby.

So to me, at least, D&D is more of an MMA fight than a real fight. Everyone is ducking, dodging, feinting, weaving, attacking, defending... it's very dynamic and interesting, but not very realistic. I would favour an agile person with a small blade who could get into the pocket without significant injury over a greatsword wielder who relied on distance and reach, every day in a real fight.

But then I guess it comes down to what you want out of your game. Fun or reality?

 

[Lancelot]

Looking at your whole paragraph it's clear that you don't understand how fragile people are and that you have subscribed to the Hollywood BS machine...

I don't normally respond to posts, but I'm forced to this one time.

Please re-read my post. I actually sort of agree with some of your points. If you're playing in an environment where the majority of creatures are human (e.g. D20 Modern or similar), than I agree that daggers or knives could be made more deadly. I don't dispute that humans are fragile, or that daggers can easily kill someone. I'd also prefer to have a dagger in hand if I was ever in a "real" fight, rather than a mace or sword. I'm not strong enough (and definitely not skilled enough) to use either of the latter, and... in the absence of a gun... the knife would be about my only hope.

However, you're posting in a D&D forum and complaining about the damage differential of weapons in the D&D heroic fantasy game. As mentioned in my post, 90% of enemies that most PCs fight aren't remotely human.

All this talk of real-world crime cases, and historical accuracy, and crippling injuries in the Emergency Room... it's all kind of pointless in the context of the argument you posited. A longsword or a warhammer or a spear is generally speaking going to be significantly more deadly than a dagger against...

• An ogre (needs deep penetration or massive trauma, and reach is critical)
• A dragon (needs penetration, and massive cutting force to get through hide, and also reach)
• A skeleton (needs massive trauma to shatter bones)
• A zombie (needs more edged force than a knife can deliver to sever limbs)
• A gelatinous cube (needs large areas cleaved off the main "nucleus" to eventually take it apart, and reach is pretty important here too to avoid getting your arm melted off)
• Etc, etc, etc...

Yes, daggers are deadly to us mere humans. I understand that perfectly. No, I don't buy into the Hollywood BS. But you're specifically asking why weapons are modelled differently in the Dungeons & Dragons (TM) game. I think creature physiology (and heroic imagery) is a large part of it.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

There aren't many stories of guys surviving 12+ direct hits from a katana.

There aren't many, but here is one!

Moral of the story, Ren Fest sword vs hand gun wielding robbers equal sad fingerless robbers.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

When your life is on the line, you're not going to back up to give your opponent with a sword an advantage. Once you're under his guard, assuming you can get there without dying, you're going to stay there and get stabby.

It's unlikely you're going to get inside the other guy's reach unless you're really lucky or he's really bad. There's a big sharp metal stick in your way, you know? And unless you're in tight quarters, there are plenty of ways to open space in a fight.

I don't see what this has to do with weapon damage anyway. D&D separates combat actions into to-hit and damage. If you were right and wanted to model it in the system it would make more sense to give the person with the shorter weapon an advantage on the attack roll and the person with the longer weapon a penalty than it would to modify damage.

But then I guess it comes down to what you want out of your game. Fun or reality?

So your opinion is realistic and everyone else's isn't? Where's that eye-roll smiley when I need it?

 

[Kzach]

So your opinion is realistic and everyone else's isn't? Where's that eye-roll smiley when I need it?

How the Hell do you make the leap from, "either fun or reality" to, "I AM RITE U R RONG!"

Here's a smiley for you:

 

[Neonchameleon]

When your life is on the line, you're not going to back up to give your opponent with a sword an advantage. Once you're under his guard, assuming you can get there without dying, you're going to stay there and get stabby.

"Once you're under his guard, assuming you can get there without dying". Do you have any idea what you are proposing there? Actually you need to get under two rings of his guard - the point and the edge slashy one.

In order to get past the point you need the tip of his sword not to be between you and him as you step forward. And he can adjust where the tip is just by moving his forearm and his wrist. You on the other hand need to move your belly - it's what the sword may be pointing at. Your belly vs his forearm in a contest of speed and agility. If you lose you run onto his blade and die. (Parrying with your dagger won't help much - its short reach and the leverage of the long blade means that the point of his sword moves faster than your dagger - it's wrist vs shoulder).

Then there's getting past the striking edge of the blade. That has the speed of the shoulder from the guy with the sword. You on the other hand need to move your entire chest in past his attack. Chest vs shoulder in a contest of speed and agility. (And if you try to parry, you're in even more trouble than last time due to momentum issues - your weight is wrong and your dagger is in the wrong place to get stabby - and he can roll his shoulder to change angle of cut while you need to move your entire arm to block).

Once you have won your contest of speed and agility pitting your belly vs his wrist and forearm, and your rib cage vs his shoulder and bicep then I agree you have the advantage. You can get stabby as you say. But you've given him two free chances to cripple you as you come in - both of them rigged in his favour. (Most blades will only use one or the other rather than both - but in the one they favour the contest is massively weighted towards them).

Oh, and another false premise. When your life is on the line, your goal is not to kill the other bastard. It's to save yours. Going in close is massively counterintuitive (as well as not being very smart). Your best move is to run. That way you survive.

But then I guess it comes down to what you want out of your game. Fun or reality?

If I wanted reality, I wouldn't go near D&D. However D&D seems more realistic than your ideas on combat.

 

[ExploderWizard]

One thing that seems to pop up in everyone's comments is reach. That's certainly a big factor in fighting. It's a shame it can't be represented easily in systems.

It can be and it is. D&D is abstract so expecting detailed accurate rules about a single facet of combat doesn't make sense. Reach is vital in GURPS combat. A greatsword fighter can attack and give ground forcing the shorter weapon wielder to move in quickly and either make a clumsy attack (wild swing) or forego defense and make an all out attack.

Small weapon wielders can use a free hand to grapple an opponent and prevent him from being able to retreat assuming the grabber has the strength to hang on.

So there are systems out there that simulate actual combat much better than D&D can.

But then I guess it comes down to what you want out of your game. Fun or reality?

If gritty simulationist detailed combat is what you find to most fun in an rpg then why must the two be mutually exclusive?