OK, stupid question...I never got what the purpose of this rule was, where a longsword is say d8, but does d12 against ogres, whereas a scimitar is just d8/d8.
Is it meant to be a realism thing - making blady things do more damage since large monsters have vital areas that are bigger - or a way of making fighters more effective than wizards against large monsters, or what?

Well, keeping in mind that "realism" in the ordinary sense of the word doesn't really have much to do with D&D's combat system...

Looking at 1st ed. AD&D's weapon list, a general pattern emerges. Weapons with higher damage against large creatures than normal ones are typically:

- Polearms that can be used to stab (even though an image search does raise some questions over the actual stabbing capacity of some of these)
- Lances (pre-eminently a stabbing weapon)
- Straight-bladed swords (again, suitable for stabbing, though I have some doubts about the two-hander).

Weapons that have a noticable lower damage against large enemies are:

- Blunt weapons.


My guess is that this is supposed to reflect the notion that A, large creatures have their vital organs deeper inside their bodies, so long stabbing weapons are more likely to reach them, and B, the same slash or blunt trauma is going to affect a proportionately relatively smaller part of the target, so it will be proportionately less harmful.

I believe the 'damage vs large' was intended as realistic.

The main effect of it in practice may be that some weapons are far more desireable than others.

Perhaps it promotes using a variety of weapons?

This is just old-school rules that reflect Cleave and Power Attack techniques & feats.

Certain weapons indeed do more damage to larger creatures.

A set spear or pike, in the face of a cavalry charge.

A full impact two-handed sword swing (power attack).

A mounted rider with a lance charging then impaling a larger than man-sized foe.

Larger than man-sized means easier target, therefore they would be hit more often. Since they don't get "more" chances to hit a larger-than-human foe, the damages tables are adjusted to reflect the increased damage these weapons would deliver.

Bladed and Piercing weapons generally do more damage and the Blunt weapons do less (reflecting the increased protection automatically engendered by being large).

Thanks for replies guys. OK.
 
That sort of makes sense, though I also wonder if there's any official info on it by Gary - Dragon magazine perhaps?

It's just a way to make fighter-types (and to lesser extent, thieves) more effective in combat against bigger and badder monsters. You'll notice that most of the higher-damage weapons are ones restricted to these classes.

I look at it as one more little quirk to the system.

In terms of game play, it doesn't make all that much difference, basically +2 expected damage (for longsword) or less for most weapons, with the few where it's bigger than that just not coming up all that much.

Once we cast Enlarge on an enemy just so we could do more damage.

The vs. Large damage was yet one more reason years ago that I went to all weapons do Base D6 damage and haven't looked back in my OD&D games.

There's one rule I never cared for at all.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;581552There's one rule I never cared for at all.

RPGPundit

The way weapons are handled in AD&D is a textbook example of compounding errors instead of stripping things back and doing it the right way: the simple way. The weapon charts in AD&D add almost nothing useful to the game for all their needless complexity. A single die for each weapon (d2, d4, d6, d8 , d10) and range/reach are really all you need. The rest (weapon vs AC, variable damage, etc) is a waste of text.

If you want to make fighters better in combat, give them damage bonuses for being fighters. This would also render obsolete the silliness of 18/XX Strength.

18/XX Strength.


Possibly this rule spawned the birth of the Powergamer.



"Yea....I rolled 18/00 Strength!"






....and Psionics....really....four 100's on four percentile rolls...honest

Quote from: Bill;58166418/XX Strength.


Possibly this rule spawned the birth of the Powergamer.



"Yea....I rolled 18/00 Strength!"






....and Psionics....really....four 100's on four percentile rolls...honest

Actually, a character's chances for having psionics are considerably better than the odds of getting 18/00 STR.

Quote from: Bill;58166418/XX Strength.


Possibly this rule spawned the birth of the Powergamer.



"Yea....I rolled 18/00 Strength!"






....and Psionics....really....four 100's on four percentile rolls...honest

In 1995 I legitimately rolled those for a fighter I was making.  I was stoked.  And we never ended up playing.

What a wasted character...

And technically, it's only 2 100s.  One for strength and one for psionics.

Quote from: Elfdart;581579The way weapons are handled in AD&D is a textbook example of compounding errors instead of stripping things back and doing it the right way: the simple way. The weapon charts in AD&D add almost nothing useful to the game for all their needless complexity. A single die for each weapon (d2, d4, d6, d8 , d10) and range/reach are really all you need. The rest (weapon vs AC, variable damage, etc) is a waste of text.

Actually, in Arrows of Indra I use "weapon vs. ac" modifiers; just a much much simpler system than you find it AD&D.

RPGPundit

For a while I used a scaled-back scheme where some weapons got +1, others got -1 and the rest got no adjustment. I did the same with reach and speed. Anything much more complex than that is not for me.