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

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

Sure, but that would be "to-hit" in D&D terms, not damage.

QuoteIf 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: Christopher Brady;861179Yeah, I'm going to have to echo Arminius here.

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

I'd say that the most important reason for bigger and bigger swords was that they were a status symbol.  Swords were expensive to make, and were associated with the nobility and with masculinity.  Codpieces also tended to get bigger and bigger through the late medieval and early modern periods, and I doubt that you would claim that bigger codpieces did "more damage", or that men sprouted larger and thicker cocks during this time period.

Also, while swords may have gotten bigger in the late Middle Ages in Europe, they also got smaller - this is also the time when small thrusting swords became the primary sidearm of the upper classes.  In fact I'd argue that weapons did NOT consistently get bigger over the course of human history - some societies used big weapons like the falx, some used small weapons like the gladius.  Pikes tended to get longer and longer, but that was explicitly about reach, not damage.

Historically, the tradeoff between bigger and smaller muscle-powered weapons is about speed and reach, not damage.  Fighting someone who has a longer weapon means it's harder for you to hit them than for them to hit you.  On the other hand, using a longer and heavier weapon is more tiring and your attacks may be slower (especially with less-balanced weapons like big hammers and axes).  Damage isn't really a concern, because "damage" is mostly determined by which internal organs you hit.

The amount of incorrect information here is downright frightening.  And worse, I think you actually believe it.

Quote from: Ddogwood;861376I'd say that the most important reason for bigger and bigger swords was that they were a status symbol.  Swords were expensive to make, and were associated with the nobility and with masculinity.  Codpieces also tended to get bigger and bigger through the late medieval and early modern periods, and I doubt that you would claim that bigger codpieces did "more damage", or that men sprouted larger and thicker cocks during this time period.

Really.  So the history books claiming that men training with these apparent show weapons were lying?  Or just plain incorrect?  And it also ignores things like two handed axes, which were called battle axes or just war axes.  Among other weapons.

Quote from: Ddogwood;861376Also, while swords may have gotten bigger in the late Middle Ages in Europe, they also got smaller - this is also the time when small thrusting swords became the primary sidearm of the upper classes.

That was due to the rise of the hand cannon, which was introduced, if I remember correctly, near the end of the 15th Century and was then called the Gonne, which more or less invalidated the point of heavily armoured cavalry that supposedly had to spend at least two decades mastering weapons that you claim were completely for show.  It was superiour because you just needed about 5 minutes to show how to point, shoot, load, as opposed to the heavy cavalryman, once called a Knight, which required years of training to get good with his own slew of weapons, of which the sword and lance were but two.

Quote from: Ddogwood;861376In fact I'd argue that weapons did NOT consistently get bigger over the course of human history - some societies used big weapons like the falx, some used small weapons like the gladius.  Pikes tended to get longer and longer, but that was explicitly about reach, not damage.

Pikes got longer because the nobles wanted their own men to survive mounted charges, and a longer weapon means your soldiers are more likely to KILL the enemy before the enemy wipes out your troops.  Which is in fact out and out damage.  There's a reason polearms and spears have pointy ends, you know.

Quote from: Ddogwood;861376Historically, the tradeoff between bigger and smaller muscle-powered weapons is about speed and reach, not damage.  Fighting someone who has a longer weapon means it's harder for you to hit them than for them to hit you.  On the other hand, using a longer and heavier weapon is more tiring and your attacks may be slower (especially with less-balanced weapons like big hammers and axes).  Damage isn't really a concern, because "damage" is mostly determined by which internal organs you hit.

This is incorrect.  Because a mace/club does not work that way.  A mace doesn't actually penetrate armour in any real visual way.  When you crack someone across the skull with a mace -which, by the way, is the most common way to use it- what you're trying to do is shake up the internal organs.  It's a concussion on a stick.  You want to create a shockwave that break bones or bounce organs around.

Weapons and armour technology has been chasing each since someone decided to wear something to block someone's club from breaking their body.  And until the gonne's introduction, armour has needed larger and heavier weapons to actually do damage.  Because smaller weapons don't actually penetrate certain heavy types.

Sheesh, this has reached Internet Kook levels of weirdness. CB has covered most of the bases and refuted the obvious fallacies, like ignoring the importance of firearms to the development of armor and therefore to the development of weapons designed to defeat armor.

The converse is that armor did get thicker and more rigid over the period from 1000 AD to 1500 AD, partly in response to improved missiles (longbow & crossbow), and partly because of improvements in craft and metallurgy. Swords were only one weapon among many, but while the pike certainly was developed as part of a tactical system designed to keep cavalry at bay and generally allow well-trained infantry to hold ground, other hand weapons clearly did become heavier to defeat thicker, more rigid, and more extensive armor: these weapons included the mace, the poleaxe, and the long, rigid, pointed longsword or estoc. This development was also no doubt supported by improved metallurgy.

However, when armor became more superfluous due to improvement in firearms, hand weapons stopped getting bigger and heavier because their users gave no fucks about size and only cared about killing the other guy before they themselves got killed. A few jackasses probably didn't buy into this notion: they died young, and everybody else learned from their example.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861381The amount of incorrect information here is downright frightening.  And worse, I think you actually believe it.

I was going to make a point-by-point response, but fuck it. I'm saying that bigger weapons didn't do "more damage" and you're responding with a bunch of bullshit about armour penetration and handguns, which you apparently learned from studying lots of fantasy novels.

If shifting the goalposts makes you feel smart on the Internet, don't let me get in your way.

Quote from: Ddogwood;861562I was going to make a point-by-point response, but fuck it. I'm saying that bigger weapons didn't do "more damage" and you're responding with a bunch of bullshit about armour penetration and handguns, which you apparently learned from studying lots of fantasy novels.

If shifting the goalposts makes you feel smart on the Internet, don't let me get in your way.

Thing is, THEY DO.  OK, here's the thing.  I can chop off an unarmed and unarmoured man's head with a two handed sword.  It's all about leverage and raw power required of the weapon.  A one handed blade MAY NOT, because bone may stop it.  And even if the knife blade is long enough, the odds of being able to chop through, I won't.

And then there's stab wounds, the thickness of a blade will determine how much trauma, AKA DAMAGE the size of a weapon can do.  Most stabs are not as clean as Hollywood claims it is.

But clearly, you've got this little theory built up in your head and have decided that 'science' has no sway in your universe, which makes me very happy we will likely never game together.

Have fun whatever you do.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861571Thing is, THEY DO.  OK, here's the thing.  I can chop off an unarmed and unarmoured man's head with a two handed sword.  It's all about leverage and raw power required of the weapon.  A one handed blade MAY NOT, because bone may stop it.  And even if the knife blade is long enough, the odds of being able to chop through, I won't.

And then there's stab wounds, the thickness of a blade will determine how much trauma, AKA DAMAGE the size of a weapon can do.  Most stabs are not as clean as Hollywood claims it is.

But clearly, you've got this little theory built up in your head and have decided that 'science' has no sway in your universe, which makes me very happy we will likely never game together.

Have fun whatever you do.

After a certain point, DEAD=DEAD. If you get halfway or all the way through a neck, homeboy is toast. A two-handed sword isn't much more likely to inflict a lethal wound than a single-handed sword, but may be more likely to deliver its force through the armor. Modern firearms blow through medieval armor, and yet for some reason frequently require multiple shots to disable or kill. D&D, and its simulacrums, models the protective nature of armor with a reduce chance of being hit. So, explain why it is that you so enamored with pointing out that larger weapons do more damage because they do more damage? Furthermore, when in a version where most NPCs, who should be the baseline assumption of human durability, have somewhere between 1d4 and 1d8 hp and never increase them, why should weapons deal more than a zero-level NPC's hitdie worth of damage?

Going back to the two-handed sword. Here are some reasons why one is a "deadly weapon," which I am sure you are aware of.

They generally have more reach, which allows you hit someone further away, and make a larger area a "do not pass Go" zone. I don't think B/X is using that level of granularity, but like variable and individual initiative and stuff.

Generally heavier weapons, plus longer blade for higher tip velocity, plus two-hands, so it can hit harder, which depending on your acceptance of certain historical texts and personal experience means hitting with a lot more strength isn't necessarily better. But with two hand you can use less strength from either arm while using more control, IMHO, and the extra available power does allow you more easily knock aside weapons and shields, sometimes. Most of that doesn't really implies doing more damage in the context of D&D, unless you interpret using your weapon defensively as one of the factors going into improving HP. Knocking aside, or going through, shields, however, is a reduction of armor class, so more damage isn't called for, more like a bonus to hit.

Disclosure, I've been using the variable damage dice for weapons almost as long as I've played D&D, and will probably continue to do so, because 1) it really doesn't matter to me, and 2) people like you.

Christopher Brady, you strike me as not only a troll, but an unartful one.

However in attacking CB, you're passing over the fact that hit points aren't meat points, at least for humans. For a variety of reasons, averaged across all armor types, some weapons do kill faster (or shall we say more assuredly) than others.

So while weapon-v-AC is a more detailed method of representing this, and (trying to keep a straight face as we are talking about D&D combat) more realistic within the combat model, variable damage is a simpler method of achieving roughly the same effect.

Quote from: Arminius;861607However in attacking CB, you're passing over the fact that hit points aren't meat points, at least for humans. For a variety of reasons, averaged across all armor types, some weapons do kill faster (or shall we say more assuredly) than others.

So while weapon-v-AC is a more detailed method of representing this, and (trying to keep a straight face as we are talking about D&D combat) more realistic within the combat model, variable damage is a simpler method of achieving roughly the same effect.

That is why I pointed out 0th level NPCs, for whom HP might be the closest to meat points, and why I did disclose that I use variable damage, even when running B/X. The bulk of my point is that CB is hell bent on using "realism" to support his and only his point despite some people totally disregarding any differences between weapons statisics-wise and other people doing so in a different manner.

Incidentally, this blog post nicely shows how to use weapon-v-AC with Basic:

http://strangemagic.robertsongames.com/2011/09/weapon-vs-armor-tables-for-bx-d.html?m=1

Quote from: Arminius;861186*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.

Yes. Eastern archers in the classical period probably hit harder than Greeks because they drew further, not from having inherently more powerful bows (which might be the impression one gets from some rules sets). Construction was largely dictated by available materials (trees for instance being scarcer on the steppes than horn).

Likewise, Roman legionaries once they got the hang of it routinely won victory with short swords and fencing skill over barbarians hacking with long swords. The more flexible legion also ended up beating the pike phalanx, more vulnerable to disturbance of close order.

A longbowman or claymore expert was raised from youth, not made overnight with a purchase of equipment. (And Welsh longbowmen seem to have got less pay than English crossbowmen in the Hundred Years War on account of cultural prejudice.)

Quote**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

As I mentioned earlier, I find a bonus or penalty on the attack roll more theoretically pleasing than one on the damage roll (reserving the latter for special cases such as those in the original 3 booklets).

Monster HD -- which give greater attack ability as well as more HP -- are as I recall explicitly stated in the original set as encompassing factors such as ferocity and weaponry.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;861339I 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.

Why 2nd Edition Gamma World? What's wrong with the combat matrixes in 1st ed., or for that matter Metamorphosis Alpha?

Considering that OD&D (including the supplements) addresses the same issues as AD&D, and more, and sometimes more elaborately (if perhaps also more clearly), I suspect the case was simply that that fellow just didn't know what he was talking about.

How he missed noticing that BX itself includes variable damage dice -- listed for every monster (often with multiple attacks to boot) as well as for every man-type weapon -- well, that's a real head-scratcher.

Quote from: AxesnOrcs;861602They generally have more reach, which allows you hit someone further away, and make a larger area a "do not pass Go" zone. I don't think B/X is using that level of granularity, but like variable and individual initiative and stuff.

In BX initiative is rolled each round for a side, party or monsters. No individual initiative.

Quote from: Omega;861638In BX initiative is rolled each round for a side, party or monsters. No individual initiative.

Unless we choose to use the Individual Initiative rule that is as I recall in there.

Quote from: Phillip;861643Unless we choose to use the Individual Initiative rule that is as I recall in there.

Yep. Pair combat page B23. For a system as nicely abstract as B/X I prefer the group initiative, mainly because simultaneous combat on a tie is so awesome. Both sides utterly destroying each other.

In an ongoing campaign, two sides that completely wipe each other out is cool because other parties can stumble onto the scene of the fight and try to figure out what happened.

Quote from: Phillip;861643Unless we choose to use the Individual Initiative rule that is as I recall in there.

Pair combat. That is optional like variable weapon damage. BECMI has individual initiative as an optional well.