Quote from: Exploderwizard;861080When I run OD&D or B/X, all weapons do a standard 1d6 for damage.

Fighting with 2 weapons grants a +1 to hit. (Not available to MU class)

Fighting with a heavy two handed weapon allows 2 die rolls for damage and you take the highest.

Thus there is some benefit of giving up a shield.

So you give them special abilities.  Cool!

Quote from: Ddogwood;861070I'm not sure that I agree that two-handed swords ought to have some advantage.  The idea of "bigger weapons should do more damage" doesn't really stand up historically - in an abstract system like "hit points" it makes even less sense.

Doesn't stand up historically?

"Should do more damage" is only one option. Be more likely to do damage (against armored opponents) would be another.

If you disagree, please explain why anyone ever used a larger weapon, and why swords tended to get bigger from the early Middle Ages through the early modern period.

Quote from: Arminius;861123Doesn't stand up historically?

Yeah, I'm going to have to echo Arminius here.

Quote from: Arminius;861123"Should do more damage" is only one option. Be more likely to do damage (against armored opponents) would be another.

If you disagree, please explain why anyone ever used a larger weapon, and why swords tended to get bigger from the early Middle Ages through the early modern period.

Yes, Ddogwood, please, explain why larger weapons were used if not for the amount of potential damage they could cause.

If armor in D&D doesn't reduce damage, provided that one were to follow the logic that larger weapons grew out of the need to hit harder to deliver force through armor, then why should large weapons that do more damage do more damage in D&D?

Quote from: AxesnOrcs;861181If armor in D&D doesn't reduce damage, provided that one were to follow the logic that larger weapons grew out of the need to hit harder to deliver force through armor, then why should large weapons that do more damage do more damage in D&D?

Personal Opinion:
AC has always been an utterly stupid way of dealing with armour, exactly as AxesnOrcs just point out.  People rationalize it all the time, but the point is that it's a basic Hit/Miss mechanic that adds an arbitrary number given the type of armour chosen.  You get better at DODGING/AVOIDING ALL DAMAGE the heavier your armour is.  And add to that magical bonuses that scale it up, where as skill never actually enters into equation at any time, you have a recipe for confusion and just plain silliness.

However, the issue is not AC.  The issue is weapon mechanics, because logically, it doesn't really matter if what you're using if everything does 1D6.  The issue is actually the varying weights and costs of the weapons, but often offering no real benefit for some of them, because their not given any.

If armour doesn't help against certain weapons, what's the point of using a heavy weapon?  Especially when having to rely on the capricious whim of a DM/GM with little to no actual knowledge of weaponry and even less care about it.

The issue with screaming common sense is that to different people, it's different things.

Common Sense in Eastern Canada is actually not the same thing in say Western Canada, simply because of certain societal or environmental factors.  Like climate or terrain.  Using Gaming as an example:  In a ship based campaign, it's common sense to not wear metal armour while on a vessel.  However, in a mountain based one, not having a heavy cloak to ward off the chill, and maybe preferring hide armour as opposed to chain or plate, would be seen as not being common sense.

So again I ask: Without having to rely on a DM's ruling -because each one WILL be different-, why should Muscles MacBuffster carry anything heavier than a dagger (Or club/spear/X, which ever is cheapest and lighter) for maximum XP carrying efficiency?

Armor making you harder to "hit" is an abstraction, so are hit points, let's stipulate that. What's not an abstraction is that when you run out of hit points, you're dead or at least knocked out.

All else being equal, people would not choose to use a weapon that was more expensive, bulkier, or which somehow compromised one's ability to avoid being injured, unless that weapon offered some compensatory advantage, namely an increase in one's ability to make the other guy dead before he can kill you. If there's a weapon that overwhelmingly disadvantages or inconveniences the user, then no one will use it.

Returning to the abstraction, a weapon that's more expensive, bulkier, etc., needs to make opponents run out of hit points faster, or it shouldn't exist.* In abstract terms this could be done either by increasing the damage from the weapon, or by giving it a bonus to hit. The latter actually does make more sense given how D&D handles armor, and the fact that heavier weapons were generally developed to improve armor penetration rather than to increase lethality per se, but the effect is what's important.**

*The exception to this general rule is that D&D is anachronistic and the equipment list includes arms & armor that weren't commonly used at the same time. Also, depending on culture, geography, and social class, not everything was available to everyone.

**Also, as I've mentioned here or in another thread, AC for monsters often doesn't represent "armor", and monster hit points often do represent pure physical bulk and toughness as opposed to the semi-mystical heroic nature of (N)PC hit points. So here, having heavier weapons cause more "damage" does make a lot of sense

Well that about sums it up. Realistically, the primary benefits of bigger weapons are 1) reach, and 2) armor penetration. Neither of which have a specific rules-based representation in classic D&D. Realism is in conflict with the level of abstraction. That of course is true with any kind of abstraction, it just kind of is highlighted here.

If that breaks your verisimilitude, or you want to honor the gamist concern that few PCs will use large two-handed weapons if there is no game benefit. I think the roll damage twice and take the higher is equally as good as varying weapon damage. It certainly means one would see more halberd wielders in your game.

Varying weapon damage itself has lots of weapons that never get used. 1e and 2e AD&D, for example, have plenty of truly sub-optimal weapons on their charts. As I believe was mentioned earlier, EGG gave both long swords and two-handed swords some pretty uber stats in comparison with other weapons (pretty sure that was deliberate, and fits a certain atmosphere). So maybe roll twice for 2-handers would work better in some cases.

I can go either way. I have no problem with most-to-all fighting types using weapon and shield. It is the way to go in most times of history, as a shield is a much bigger advantage in reality than non-magical shields provide in D&D. Especially in small skirmishes (i.e. D&D combat) instead of the battlefield, where effects like reach and spear hedges is reliably usable, and you'd be up against a lot of armored foes, such that a 2handed weapon would be required.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;861206Well that about sums it up. Realistically, the primary benefits of bigger weapons are 1) reach, and 2) armor penetration. Neither of which have a specific rules-based representation in classic D&D.

I'm not sure if it's in any supplements or Strategic Reviews for OD&D, but it was addressed in 1E with the bonuses to hit that the 2-hander gets on the weapons vs AC table, it's just that most people either don't use it at all (most common) or misapply it by not using the correct modifier for AC type but instead cross-referencing the table against the character's armor class after modifications for magic, dexterity, etc.

I like the WvAC table, and don't find it to be the gigantic overhead that it is said to be, but that might be only because of years of using it.

It's harder in AD&D than in Greyhawk, and since we're talking about B/X, I'm pretty sure the Greyhawk values can be carried over easily.

It isn't "gamist" that weapons need a compensating advantage to overcome their disadvantage. It's reality. Within the constraints of any given time/place/etc. people don't choose to use weapons that will make them dead, they'll choose weapons that make the other guy dead. The D&D damage values aren't great, and the distinction of sword types is vague and possibly inaccurate (is a long sword an estoc or a spatha?) but whether you vary by damage or bonus-vs-AC, the reason for using an inferior weapon could be because it's all that's available (maybe you lost your weapon and you're using an antique from a tomb), or you are from a less technologically developed place or time, or your local combat culture has settled into a different equilibrium point such that the disadvantages don't matter (as e.g. if heavy armor isn't much used due to lack of metal, or climate, or style of tactical organization, your culture may find scimitars perfectly adequate for killing people without worrying about the weight of a bastard sword).

Weapons vs. AC would actually be more sensible in B/X than in AD&D, since a given AC value (magical adjustments aside) always represent the same armor type (AC 4 is, by definition, chainmail + shield), so it makes sense that a given weapon would be more effective against AC 4 (there's something about it that gives it an edge against that particular armor type). In AD&D you get the weird result that a given weapon has the same advantage against chainmail + shield and banded mail (both AC 4) even though they're totally different armor types.

Quote from: aspiringlich;861291Weapons vs. AC would actually be more sensible in B/X than in AD&D, since a given AC value (magical adjustments aside) always represent the same armor type (AC 4 is, by definition, chainmail + shield), so it makes sense that a given weapon would be more effective against AC 4 (there's something about it that gives it an edge against that particular armor type). In AD&D you get the weird result that a given weapon has the same advantage against chainmail + shield and banded mail (both AC 4) even though they're totally different armor types.

Yeah, I tend to drop the + shield part, and only use the modifier for the armor type by itself for just the reason you mention.  So if you're wearing chain and shield than you get the modifier for AC 5.

In theory if someone wore no armor and used a shield then I would use AC 9, but I don't remember this coming up ever.

Quote from: Phillip;860570Why the hell should we have to have our D&D variant dictated to us by someone else?

I didn't read that as "dictated by someone else" as much as "this toolset might be closer to your taste."

But that's just me.

Including shield as part of the armor type is important for representing flail-type weapons, at least in theory. (In fact I've had a conversation with Settembrini where we were pretty dubious about the "ball and chain" having ever gotten real use.)

There may be some other weapon types that are uniquely advantageous against shields.

I haven't looked over the 1e armor lists in a while but maybe the solution there is to just do away with the extra armors, many of which are dubious anyway. Or lump them with the next lower or higher non-shield armor type when used without shield.

Quote from: Arminius;861345Including shield as part of the armor type is important for representing flail-type weapons, at least in theory. (In fact I've had a conversation with Settembrini where we were pretty dubious about the "ball and chain" having ever gotten real use.)

Apparently that's a 19th century fiction. Real flails were just spiffed up versions of the two sticks attached by a chain that peasants used to beat grain.

Yeah, we thought pretty much the same thing. http://www.the-prussian-gamer.de/index.php?topic=2108.msg43780#msg43780

Depending on how trope-y you want to get--basically if you do include the ball-and-chain just cuz it's kewl--and I wouldn't begrudge anyone that--it should still have its own peculiar advantages just to make the fiction coherent and comprehensible.

Aside from that I am not sure I can think of any weapon system that was especially more effective against shields, but I wouldn't rule it out. (The pilum was designed to mess up shields but not in a hit-bonus kind of way.)