Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5623479" data-attributes="member: 61155">I'm not sure how true that is. It probably is an absurdly oversized weapon for most folks - which is somewhat mitigated in D&amp;D, where characters routinely have strength scores that are effectively superhuman, meaning that wielding such a ridiculously heavy weapon is actually possible. &nbsp;Sure, you can kill someone with a dagger, but the idea that it has the edge on a battlefield... not sure I buy it. Reach counts for a lot - something D&amp;D only vaguely addresses. What is true is that a hit from a big heavy sword will usually do much more damage than being stabbed by a dagger. What is also true is that, for most people, that difference doesn't really matter - a dagger in the neck will kill them just as dead as being fully decapitated by a greataxe. &nbsp;But again - in D&amp;D, all these elements get abstracted into the damage/hitpoint/etc system. Honestly, you just aren't going to get a satisfactory version of what you want without adding, like, seventeen new combat subsystems to more accurately reflect reach, pinpoint accuracy, weapon damage, etc. Stuff like effects vs different kinds of armor, like we used to have. Add in enough of that, and you'll have situations where the dagger is superior, perhaps - but for myself, I don't think that it is worth it. The current abstraction fits me well, and you can have effective dagger wielders, and that's good enough for me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MrMyth, post: 5623479, member: 61155"] I'm not sure how true that is. It probably [I]is [/I]an absurdly oversized weapon for most folks - which is somewhat mitigated in D&D, where characters routinely have strength scores that are effectively superhuman, meaning that wielding such a ridiculously heavy weapon is actually possible. Sure, you can kill someone with a dagger, but the idea that it has the edge on a battlefield... not sure I buy it. Reach counts for a lot - something D&D only vaguely addresses. What [I]is [/I]true is that a hit from a big heavy sword will usually do much more damage than being stabbed by a dagger. What is [I]also [/I]true is that, for most people, that difference doesn't really matter - a dagger in the neck will kill them just as dead as being fully decapitated by a greataxe. But again - in D&D, all these elements get abstracted into the damage/hitpoint/etc system. Honestly, you just aren't going to get a satisfactory version of what you want without adding, like, seventeen new combat subsystems to more accurately reflect reach, pinpoint accuracy, weapon damage, etc. Stuff like effects vs different kinds of armor, like we used to have. Add in enough of that, and you'll have situations where the dagger is superior, perhaps - but for myself, I don't think that it is worth it. The current abstraction fits me well, and you can have effective dagger wielders, and that's good enough for me. [/QUOTE]

Verification