OSRGaming

 

Author Topic: Question About Weapon Damage/Target Size  (Read 122 times)

Offline Shiftkitty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • XP: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Question About Weapon Damage/Target Size
« on: June 03, 2018, 11:08:06 AM »
Found some old character sheets and a question popped into my head. I know the answer is probably in the book somewhere, but I'll ask anyway:

Why do some weapons do greater damage against Large targets while others do less?
"Attack now! We can level up in Hell!"
~ My nephew getting carried away at his first D&D game

Offline Pladohs Ghost

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
  • XP: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Question About Weapon Damage/Target Size
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2018, 03:21:31 PM »
I don't recall any specific explanations in the books, though there may be.

The line of thinking behind that seems to be that large weapons can only do so much damage to medium/small creatures because there's only so much medium/small creature tissue to be damaged at one time--can't hurt what's not there. Large critters have more tissue to damage, so more of the energy from the weapons gets translated to damage.

If you drive a nail into a 1/4" board, only the quarter inch gets damaged, despite the nail being 2" long. If you drive that nail into a 4" board, a whole 2" of board gets damaged by the nail. Make sense?
Occasional freelance writer and editor.
Biggest gaming thrill: editing EGG.

Offline AuldDragon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
  • XP: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Question About Weapon Damage/Target Size
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2018, 05:36:43 PM »
There's also an interesting element in how the weapons most commonly favored by warriors deal extra damage against large creatures, while those usable by priests and wizards tend to deal less damage. So it also functions as a class ability for warriors.

Jeff
Spelljammer Livestream Campaign | My 2nd Edition Blog
"That sums it up in a nutshell, AuldDragon. You make a more convincing argument. But he's right and you're not."