Why is bigger always better?

[Neonchameleon]

It has been touched on a couple of times already, but worth re-stating - I think the most significant omission in D&D is weapon reach. When I first started D&D many, many years ago lighter weapons were 'intuitively' much faster. But a few years later when watching or having pretend duels with re-enactment guys (and given that these are not real fights, not real weapons yadayada) reach was THE most significant thing.

The guy that had reach dominated the duel. Swords vs daggers? Spears or halberds vs swords? It was only when you got to absurd lengths like Pike (which I believe are expressly for formation fighting?) that it might fall down.

This. I can think of one case where a shorter weapon drove out a longer one. That was smallsword vs rapier, and chiefly because the rapier was so long the rapier wielder had no leverage when the smallsword wielder used his blade to bind the rapier - the rapiers having extended to such lengths to beat shorter rapiers. (There have probably been others).

Reach matters. And because reach matters, daggers are amongst the slowest weapons out there. You might be able to twirl a dagger faster than a scimitar. But that's not weapon speed. Weapon speed is about who hits first. You need to get your hand within four inches of my chest to hit. With the scimitar, I need to get my fist within about two and a half feet of your shoulder. Or arm. Or head. And as for speed to change direction, you rotate your hand through ninety degrees and (assuming a 6" blade), the tip will have moved about 10". Due to a blade that's almost three foot long, rolling my wrist will move my blade more than four foot - or a cut that was coming for your right shoulder is now coming for your waist on your left hand side or your right thigh through a simple flick of the wrist in the same time it takes you to move your point those ten inches. And because of the weight of the pommel and blades not being that heavy this isn't too hard for someone with skill and practice.

Length is a speed multiplier. Larger longer weapons are faster where it counts. They also have more leverage and momentum (although aren't anything like as heavy as in D&D) so they cut deeper.

(And yes, pikes are for formation fighting).

 

[MrMyth]

I never said a dagger was the be-all and end-all of combat. I simply wanted to point out that a small weapon can be just as deadly as a large weapon and that this isn't represented in any real way in D&D.

"A knife wielder would kill them before they'd have even drawn the thing."

"Getting cut or stabbed just once, pretty much anywhere, is enough to put 99% of people on the floor in agony."

That seems to be advocating knives as some sort of ultimate instant-kill weaponry, at least to me. Now, I don't think that was your actual goal - but that's my point. This sort of hyperbole just keeps distracting from your point!

It's an accepted fact that the D&D system isn't very realistic. Are you going to argue that? Hence why I said, either you accept the game as it is (fun) or you try to make it more realistic (reality). Fun or reality.

I never even HINTED at the viewpoint, "MY WAY IS REALISTIC AND YOU'RE ALL WRONG!" And if I haven't even done that once, then I can hardly "repeatedly claim" it.

Look, the entire 'fun or reality' thing is the problem. You are presenting that choice, while ignoring the fact that folks are arguing that the game as it is - or the concept of bigger weapons doing more damage, at the least - does reflect reality. Or, at least, does so more accurately than what you are describing.

You've put forward several arguments for why knives are dangerous and potentially better than other weapons. Significant and solid counter-arguments were offered, most of which you have ignored. And instead, basically, turn to this sort of rhetoric, where you are defining the opinions of others (that larger weapons can, in fact, be superior to knives) as simply the 'fun' 'game' version of things, and your viewpoint (that knives are superior) as 'reality'.

 

[Janx]

the reason the phrase "never bring a knife to a gunfight" and hence my D&D paraphrasing of it is, because a knife is NOT a better weapon.

yes, a knife is better than having no weapon, and better to have against a guy with no weapon, or if you somehow get in close to a guy with a bigger weapon.

But the point of bigger weapons, is they do MORE damage and they have more reach.

It is VERY hard to get in close, to somebody who knows how to use their reach advantage.

And you can't talk about the superiority of your favorite weapon without considering that you will be facing someone who knows THEIR weapon.

In the case of EW's phone booth challenge. Who gets in first? Because if I do, I won't let him in with me if I can help it with my blade. And if he gets in first, i'll have a sitting duck who lost his mobility so I can keep jabbing at him.

The advocacy of a knife as a superior weapon to just about anything else is like the big talk from a 1st year karate student. They learn a couple moves and think they can beat anything.

In an open arena, two trained gladiators, one with knife, one with sword, the swordman has the advantage.

Versus a watermelon, the guy with a sword has the advantage for damage. It is far easier to cleave it or pierce it deeply because of the added weight of the sword.

As for the bulkiness of the greatswords, the guys who wield them have muscles as big as your head. Ten pounds is a pittance to such a man to be swinging. They practice more than just taking big lumbering swings, because these guys aren't idiots looking to die by some punk holding a knife.

The samurai practice a technique where they can draw and kill in one stroke. It is foolish to assume you can kill such a man with your knife when the very act of drawing their blade is what kills you.

The facts do not favor a knife as a superior weapon. Useful, yes. Better than nothing, and best deployed with cunning.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Mrmyth, janx, I fear you are both in danger of setting upna straw man based upon some examples that kzach may have used and then attempting to 'win' an argument against him. Nor is the discussion as one sided as you imply.

Please concentrate on the original question, that is where the interesting discussion will lie. Ignore the knife and discuss sword vs two handed sword vs mangablade (or whatever the current incarnation of 'superior weapon' is called).

Thanks

 

[Nymrohd]

Personally I agree with the AD&D approach to weapons. Namely different weapon damage for different target sizes.

Against a human both a dagger and a greatsword are deadly. Do you think a dagger would be as deadly against a dragon? Sure we don't have that many dragons around here to test this; think of trying to kill an elephant. Do you think you could easily deliver any critical wound to an elephant with a dagger? It's not just that you won't be able to penetrate deep enough, most of the animal is way out of your effective reach.

D&D is trying to model weapon damage against creatures with varying physiologies. There are many abstractions necessary. Against humanoid opponents with a predictable anatomy, light weapons are deadly. Yet in D&D light weapons have always been in the hands of rogues or similar characters who could deal much damage in addition to the weapon damage dealt; a partial dissociation here but effective in result. When it came to large scaled creatures like dragons, the abstraction for light weapons might be that you manage to slip your blade between scales at a critical point. And certain editions of the game had proper rules to deal with why a dagger would simply be incapable of damage an iron golem.

You cannot view weapon damage ranges in a vacuum.

 

[GSHamster]

Please concentrate on the original question, that is where the interesting discussion will lie. Ignore the knife and discuss sword vs two handed sword vs mangablade (or whatever the current incarnation of 'superior weapon' is called).

I don't think it's "1H sword vs 2H-sword". Rather it's "1H Sword + Shield vs 2H sword". In this case the trade-off is obvious. You trade extra defense for extra offense.

Whether that holds up in historical reality, I don't know. But it seems reasonable enough to me.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't think it's "1H sword vs 2H-sword". Rather it's "1H Sword + Shield vs 2H sword". In this case the trade-off is obvious. You trade extra defense for extra offense.

Whether that holds up in historical reality, I don't know. But it seems reasonable enough to me.

It does. And shields are seriously underrated in D&D. Large shields are also a complete pain to carry around, and carrying one is really going equipped to look for a fight in a way that even a claymore isn't. You can carry a four foot claymore on your back, and with a little practice and care when you sit down it won't get in the way much at all. And smallswords are very easyl. On the other hand, a 4ft high and 2ft wide kite shield on your back is going to cause real problems - and a 3ft diameter round shield is going to be worse. (A heater might be manageable and a buckler certainly is, but heaters didn't protect the legs and were for people who wanted to ride on horseback and bucklers don't protect anything like as much).

The problem with the mangablade is that there's no way the thing can be balanced even for two handed use. The centre of mass is almost exactly half way along the blade, which means for really fast blocks you move your sword round that point. And that means you need to move your shoulders, your arms, and just about everything else.

And for the record, 10lb two handed sword and incredibly strong forearms? Wiki gives the weight of a claymore as 4.9 to 6.2lb, and a zweihander as a little more. The first figure for a nodachi I found works out at just over 7lb. 10lb weapons did exist, but they were ceremonial - D&D weapon weights run high.

 

[El Mahdi]

shields are seriously underrated in D&D.

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

And for the record, 10lb two handed sword and incredibly strong forearms? Wiki gives the weight of a claymore as 4.9 to 6.2lb, and a zweihander as a little more. The first figure for a nodachi I found works out at just over 7lb. 10lb weapons did exist, but they were ceremonial - D&D weapon weights run high.

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.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't think it's "1H sword vs 2H-sword". Rather it's "1H Sword + Shield vs 2H sword". In this case the trade-off is obvious. You trade extra defense for extra offense.

Whether that holds up in historical reality, I don't know. But it seems reasonable enough to me.

Nope, we're not talking about fighting style tradeoff, but the relative damage of different weapon sizes. The biggest strangeness is 2H sword vs fullblade, and following that line of logic the undoubtedly forthcoming mangablade/doubleplusgood sword.

 

[Plane Sailing]

To be honest I think I would have been much happier if they didn't go for all those 'superior' weapons that cost a feat to use and have credibility problems but instead had weapon technique feats that allowed you to up the damage die with a weapon. Thus someone with a 2H sword and the 'full-on blade' feat would be doing the damage that a full blade did. Same thing with the mordencrad and all the other silly 'superior' weapons. Same feat investment, same damage at the end, more sanity.

IMO, of course!