Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why is bigger always better?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5623257" data-attributes="member: 59506"><p>I understand what he's saying, and though he's oversimplifying things a bit, there's a kernel of truth.</p><p> </p><p>Katana's have taken many different forms throughout the centuries. We tend to use the word "Katana" for any single-edged, curved, Japanese sword. The Japanese don't (or at least those that study the history of the Japanese sword). They have different names for the different swords, with varying lengths and degree of curve based on the purpose of the weapon - which could be anything from personal defense to attacking horses, and every use in between.</p><p> </p><p>The sword that we typically call a Katana, although capable of use on the battlefield, was mostly a duelling weapon. In earlier centuries, Samurai were mounted warriors focused on archery more than personal prowess with a sword. The swords they did carry in battle were typically longer than what we today call a Katana, and usually had a more significant curve to them, so as to be more effective at attacking horses and other mounted combatants. Samurai used many weapons, and as with all combat and combatants throughout history, would endeavor to use the best tool for the given job.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>To the OP: @<u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=56189" target="_blank">Kzach</a></u> </p><p> </p><p>I understand the arguments for bigger weapons doing more damage. In theory, a big sword can hack off a limb, essentially doing more "damage" than a knife in most situations. But I see what you're saying also: a knife to the heart causing immediate death is just as lethal as the sword hacking off a limb - and maybe even more so as losing the limb may be more survivable.</p><p> </p><p>I think the problem lies in people seeing the potential wound one weapon can make as compared to another, and view that as the only consideration to "lethality". Of course that potential wound is usually demonstrated on a defenseless target (i.e.: not fighting back or defending itself).</p><p> </p><p>The lethality and usefulness of a weapon is determined by much more than just the size of the potential wounds it can make. The other equally important factors would include how efficiently the weapon can be used, how well it can be defended against, how effective it is against different defences (armor, shields, reach, etc.), how fast or slow it is, the weapons reach, etc. - but size does, to a certain extent, contribute to the equation.</p><p> </p><p>Maybe a more realistic damage system (while trying to maintain ease of gameplay) would eliminate the "damage" category of each weapon, but add bonuses to attack and defense based on the aspects of the weapon (and possibly even adding situational modifiers, such as a pick versus plate, or using a large weapon in a confined area, etc.), and then simply determine damage from the difference between the attack roll and the targets AC/Defense.</p><p> </p><p>In this manner, a dagger - though potentially just as lethal as a sword - might have a lower attack and defense bonus (mostly due to size). And a sword with potentially the same lethality as the knife, would have an attack and defense bonus due it's size. And each would still have the same critical threat ranges they already possess.</p><p> </p><p>Designing a mechanic like this though would either require the elimination of Critical Hits or changing what Critical Hits mean (say into something that creates a <em>"wound"</em> that generates a penalty - like -2 to attack, defense, and checks on top of any determined Hit Point damage).</p><p> </p><p>The advantage of the mechanic would be eliminating the damage roll (speeding up combat resolution), and naturally incorporating a "Damage Reduction" effect without having to subtract a DR (someone with a high defense or armor class is likely going to lose less Hit Points on average than someone with a lower defense or armor class).</p><p> </p><p>The possible disadvantages would be increased math at character creation or for varying circumstances, and the potential for grindy combat (especially against opponents of equal skill/level).</p><p> </p><p>I think it would be fun to explore though.</p><p> </p><p><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="El Mahdi, post: 5623257, member: 59506"] I understand what he's saying, and though he's oversimplifying things a bit, there's a kernel of truth. Katana's have taken many different forms throughout the centuries. We tend to use the word "Katana" for any single-edged, curved, Japanese sword. The Japanese don't (or at least those that study the history of the Japanese sword). They have different names for the different swords, with varying lengths and degree of curve based on the purpose of the weapon - which could be anything from personal defense to attacking horses, and every use in between. The sword that we typically call a Katana, although capable of use on the battlefield, was mostly a duelling weapon. In earlier centuries, Samurai were mounted warriors focused on archery more than personal prowess with a sword. The swords they did carry in battle were typically longer than what we today call a Katana, and usually had a more significant curve to them, so as to be more effective at attacking horses and other mounted combatants. Samurai used many weapons, and as with all combat and combatants throughout history, would endeavor to use the best tool for the given job. To the OP: @[U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=56189"]Kzach[/URL][/U] I understand the arguments for bigger weapons doing more damage. In theory, a big sword can hack off a limb, essentially doing more "damage" than a knife in most situations. But I see what you're saying also: a knife to the heart causing immediate death is just as lethal as the sword hacking off a limb - and maybe even more so as losing the limb may be more survivable. I think the problem lies in people seeing the potential wound one weapon can make as compared to another, and view that as the only consideration to "lethality". Of course that potential wound is usually demonstrated on a defenseless target (i.e.: not fighting back or defending itself). The lethality and usefulness of a weapon is determined by much more than just the size of the potential wounds it can make. The other equally important factors would include how efficiently the weapon can be used, how well it can be defended against, how effective it is against different defences (armor, shields, reach, etc.), how fast or slow it is, the weapons reach, etc. - but size does, to a certain extent, contribute to the equation. Maybe a more realistic damage system (while trying to maintain ease of gameplay) would eliminate the "damage" category of each weapon, but add bonuses to attack and defense based on the aspects of the weapon (and possibly even adding situational modifiers, such as a pick versus plate, or using a large weapon in a confined area, etc.), and then simply determine damage from the difference between the attack roll and the targets AC/Defense. In this manner, a dagger - though potentially just as lethal as a sword - might have a lower attack and defense bonus (mostly due to size). And a sword with potentially the same lethality as the knife, would have an attack and defense bonus due it's size. And each would still have the same critical threat ranges they already possess. Designing a mechanic like this though would either require the elimination of Critical Hits or changing what Critical Hits mean (say into something that creates a [I]"wound"[/I] that generates a penalty - like -2 to attack, defense, and checks on top of any determined Hit Point damage). The advantage of the mechanic would be eliminating the damage roll (speeding up combat resolution), and naturally incorporating a "Damage Reduction" effect without having to subtract a DR (someone with a high defense or armor class is likely going to lose less Hit Points on average than someone with a lower defense or armor class). The possible disadvantages would be increased math at character creation or for varying circumstances, and the potential for grindy combat (especially against opponents of equal skill/level). I think it would be fun to explore though. :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why is bigger always better?
Top