What videos games/RPGs get WRONG about weapon damage
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 апр 2022
- Thank you to HelloFresh for partnering with me on this video! Use code SHADIVERSITY16 for up to 16 FREE MEALS + 3 Surprise Gifts across 6 HelloFresh boxes plus free shipping at bit.ly/3emMpiN !
Let's talk about the big thing that video games and RPGs get wrong about medieval weapon damage.
My novel, Shadow of the Conqueror Audio Book affiliate links:
US: www.audible.com/shadbrooks
UK: www.audible.co.uk/shadbrooks
CA: www.audible.ca/shadbrooks
AU: www.audible.com.au/shadbrooks
Ebook, Paperback and Hardcover available from most major book retailers, here are a few of the main ones:
Amazon affiliate link (be sure to navigate to your country's amazon site):
amzn.to/2XErUaR
Barnes and Noble:
www.barnesandnoble.com/w/shad...
Kobo:
www.kobo.com/au/en/ebook/shad...
If you like the content and want to support the channel, you're welcome to do so through patreon or subscribe star:
/ shadiversity
www.subscribestar.com/shadive...
Awesome Shirts and chainmail print clothing: teespring.com/en-GB/stores/sh...
Visit Calimacil for the best replica foam swords and LARP weapons: calimacil.com?aff=38
Buy my sword IMPERIOUS from Calimacil: calimacil.com/products/imperi...
Come check out my new channel KNIGHTS WATCH: / @knightswatch
Community run discord server: / discord
My official website: www.shadmbrooks.com/
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
Wait, so you're telling me that a sword doesn't deal extra damage because it's made out of silver or gold instead of iron??
What other lies have I been fed?
Wait, you're telling me that almost every weapon does bleed damage?
are you two saying this ironically? because i'm not sure if you are (i'm actually asking)
@@jacktheomnithere2127 I would bet it's ironic... otherwise... well...
@@cioplasmmajic8327 In this sense, Elden Ring pvp is very realistic lol
If you are a witcher silver swords do ridiculous amount of dmg against monsters and fuckall against humans because reasons. Gold was not tested against either one.
In the 90s, there was a PC RPG game called Darklands that tried to reinvent the whole HP concept. They tried to get rid of the idea of a level 90 fighter that could shrug off a whole bushel of arrows like it was nothing. Actually, in that game it was far more likely that your characters would collapse from fatigue than actually succumb to a fatal wound. It was a really interesting game in that it tried to accurately recreate true medieval times, throwing in the legend and lore of the time for extra fun. They even went so far as to replace magic with alchemy.
Isn't that the one where one of the skills you can learn is Latin, and if you get good enough at Latin you can recognize towns where satanic cults have taken hold and perform backwards mass?
+1 for darklands. Immaculate low-magic setting
Base D&D rules do the same in a TT RPG setting. HP is not just physical damage you can take but also how well you reduce the damage of a hit by directing the force/impact. It's why almost all level 1 characters and civilians can be killed by a single sword strike or arrow hit. Higher level characters get more HP but a lot of that represents skill/training, experience and just plain dumb luck. An arrow to the heart is far more deadly than one to the breast bone.
Kingdom come deliverance is also like this
@@Ishlacorrin
An yet a high level human can chug enough poison to kill a household and keep standing
I always describe "damage" in my TTRPGs as how easily you can land the lethal blow. HP then becomes a measure of skill and endurance before a character fails to defend against a lethal blow
Hit points, dexterity stamina in avoiding and rolling with glancing hits. Once you get winded then it is constitution muscle/bone damage. Make Fort saving throw vs damage dealt or die.
From Roman records and modern reenactors a well fit man can only fight on the front line shield wall between eight to ten minutes before exhaustion sets in and they fail to have the arm reflex strength to defend themselves from attacks and get .. dropped.
My gaming shops had whole lists of crazy write ups explaining arrow/bolt damage sticking out of your armor.
Such as full dmg from a projectile just meant a glancing hit which .. scratched .. the PC. And if you take and arrow hit it does constitution dmg.
As my 13 year old cousin pointed out, a heavy 1,000 lb crossbow fired at point blank six ft range is a full kinetic hit. If you are not just killed out right, you are on the ground dying.
My shop players were always on the look out for an archer or crossbow when they get six on one shield wall rushed. Point blank shots to the ribs lead to collapse lungs or strait Fort saves for fast deaths.
Spell example, 1st-level Burning Hands, which can kill starting low level beings but barely a bother at higher levels. Here is the catch since Hp and Reflex saves represent the ability to dodge the fire to keep it from killing them out right or a slow burn to death. If a group is pressed in during a shield wall then the attackers/defenders can not Avoid the spell Burning Hands so they take constitution damage instead.
As a player stated, if I set the system up for 1st-level PC fighter or rogue can strait kill a 10th-level fighter with 75hp, then my 1st-level wizard should flank during a dog pack and Burning Hands his neck & face. " cough, cough," .. fire up between the legs setting the under lining padded armor on fire.
Another example of murder hoboism, bar maiden is a 3rd-level rogue, PC/npc is on his fourth pint and with a raised mug and breasts pressed on the side of his face sitting down. The bar maid punches the back of his skull for 3d6 damage. Fort save vs knockout.
Does his max total of hit points really matter at that point ?
I approve of reinterpreting existing mechanics. The important thing it models is that if you keep attacking somebody, eventually they're gonna fall down and be unable to fight. Why this happens though, is up to interpretation.
The problem with reinterpreting mechanics like that is that it can often break other things, for example it requires also reinterpreting healing magic, and in many games poison is applied on a hit, which is a problem if you are interpreting hp as stamina instead and losing hp isn't actually getting wounded.
@@WJS774 When WotC came out with D&D3rdE/Star Wars poisons started to be applied as temporary constitution damage instead of direct Hp damage. Yet as the rules written 25 years ago, a long with the problem of AD&D2ndE, they gave no listed description on what body happening effects poison does to a target creature.
I am allergic to bee, wasp, and hornet venom which requires shots after bad stings or my skin will puff up and I risk suffocation and heart problems. Spider bites from wolf/wood spiders can get very nasty and can result in bleeding holes in your skin within about a hour's time unless you can bath the bite in lemon/ lavender extract oil. Spider bite near the eye can permanently destroy the eye ball itself.
I got a full face full spray of wasp poison which was no joke which lead to vomiting and shaking.
@@WJS774 Reinterpreting healing magic, that has been going on since AD&D2ndE, then at the start of WotC 3rdE. Such as Cure Light Wounds won't help a PC brought below Zero Hp if brought down with a Critical Hits you will need the spell Cure Critical Wounds instead. At minus negative 11 Hp means the PC is really dead and missing their head or serious organ damage.
Late 1980's and early 1990's game systems WEG west end games Star Wars d6 system, and Whitewolf/ World of Darkness had Health levels and not hit points. So poisons do both health level damage & Ability/attribute damage.
It all comes down to the style of story telling play your DM and player group run.
Shad using the Bec de Corbin to "tenderize" the chicken was absolutely hilarious!
This is what i wanted to see every time I have cooked in a kitchen. Clip that as a short it would be beautiful.
I'd totally do this, were I to own such a handsome beast.
I thought he was joking so I laughed like J Jonah Jameson.
Then he actually started to do it, and I laughed harder.
Someone cut that part after the outro to make it its own short video.
Killing people with melee weapons is relatively hard. I treated people with lots of stab wounds and lots of machete cuts from a single encounter.
I notice some things like:
1) Usually machetes cuts didn't passed bone. I think two factors played here;
a) Machete blades are light and over flexible, this way lessing the depth of the cut.
b) Moving ang resisting people, made the blade lose edge aligment during a cut limiting the depth of such cut.
2) People losing a upper limb didn't bled out to death (people didn't ever applied a torniquet just place a shirt or t-shirt on the wound stumb as hard as they could. The clothes came completely soak with blood but clotting had stopped the bleeding (learn how to make a torniquette).
3) Attackers usually stopped in their homicidal intent, after being gravely wounded by a defender.
I saw this from drunk machete fights, robberies and rage attacks. Physically they could keep on attacking, but they usually stopped after receiving a serious injury like a deep cut, some torso stabs or getting shot a couple of times.
4) Attackers usually didn't stopped if the defender failed in defending, attackers stopped attacking until they killed the victim or got tired. Sometimes attackers were brought to the hospital by the police and I had chances to speak with them or the officers that brought them.
5) Defenders that came out the better, with less wounds, were armed since the begining.
What would you say is rhe best weapon for self defense? Im thinking of carrying a small knife since pepper spray and tasers are illegal in my country
Would you say it’s also about leverage. A sword will have an easy time doing more damage with the same effort compared to a knife
@@anakay1184 you can carry a knife but not pepper spray or tazers?
@@guycross493 yeah. Dumb laws and that's why crime rate is so high. The law here is so twisted that cops can't do much to criminals for fear of going yo jail and if you defend yourself they can sue you.
Still, i need a way to protect myself since I'm moving to the capital to study
@@anakay1184 go with the cane
So THAT's why spears had wings on them. THIS is the kind of content I've been missing on Shadiversity as of late: education on realistic weapons people might not understand how to use them realistically even in fantasy settings. This takes me back to the "Fantasy Rearmed: Dagger" video, which was an interesting one.
Why did they have wings?
@@SuperMurray2009 The wings of a spear prevent one from lunging TOO deep into an opponent and risk one's weapon becoming stuck.
I used to be confused about this too, when I was younger.
I think, my younger self explained those "weird parts that stick out of the spear sideways" as ornamental or to attach ornamental things like tassels easier (i was used to the very baseline spear, that is just a long stick with a metal tip on it, and rarely saw a spear with something like wings on it, so anything that deviated from that baseline spear was ornamental to me).
Then I learned about the boar spear (i think i was first introduced to it by the Hobbit movie) and learned how it was used, and suddenly these weird things started to make sense to me.
Everything went to crap when the accepted meaning of hit points became actual, literal health. Folks forget that HP was meant to be an abstract, representing not just physical condition and wounds, but also almost as a "luck" pool; how many times you can get into combat and have attacks coming at you before one of them finally gets through a weak spot in your armor, or before you're able to parry away one coming straight at your neck, or otherwise something similar.
t. grognard.
This is exactly what I have been saying all this time. People always derive D&D due to how heros seem to take dozens of wounds and come out fine until they arn't, instead of realizing that HP also represents the ability to prevent such wounds form occurring in the first place without tacking on an entire damage reduction system.
Been a gamer forever and this just sounds like a similar system to poise or posture from fromsoftware games to me. HP stands for Health Points which is self explanatory. Though I'm interested in what exactly you're talking about.
@@MrKing-qd7gi read how Gary described then in the 1e DMG.
@@MrKing-qd7gi HP stands for Hit Points, not Health Points. As in, how likely you are to be hit. HP goes up as you become more experienced, because you learn how to dodge/block/parry more effectively. The problem with HP systems is that, in real life, even the best warrior in the world can still make a mistake, or the opponent can get lucky, or can be attacked in his/her sleep, and they would still die just like the peasant that attacked them.
A more accurate HP system would have current HP rolled vs incoming attacks. This would make two realistic scenarios come to life: 1) The more skilled (higher HP) character would most often beat the less skilled character, 2) The weakest character in the world might (though very unlikely) strike down the highest skilled character with a single lucky blow.
@@peaceandloveusa6656 HP stands for whatever the game says it does so Hit Points and Health Points depends entirely on the game regardless of how you interpret Hit Points to mean. Even where it originated from still used it the same as what you'd use health points for. It could be Hot Puns if the game wants it to be.
Otherwise yah sounds like an interesting idea for a game I guess. Shooters mainly already basically work like that so it's not some unheard of mechanic. I guess you're looking for some medieval MMO or something to do that, based off of your description? I'm down to try it if it's executed correctly but the reason why we have set numbers is because it's consistent. You put in inconsistent damage and inconsistent HP in the same relm of PVP and you are asking for issues.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean. "HP Rolled vs incoming attacks" isn't exactly a detailed description. Again though almost anything can be good if executed correctly.
At the end of the day, reach is king in real life, while in games (especially turn based RPGs) its effects are negligible compared to damage.
It's a matter of game design, not realism. A change in damage is very noticeable in video games, and seeing the numbers go up on the character sheet for table top games is far more satisfying than an extra 10cm of reach.
mount and blade disagrees xD (warband player, dunno what it's like in bannerlord)
@@krolon9786 the best weapon in warband as far i as i played and i played about 200+ hours was a big ass axe it one shot almost every unit in the game and had nearly as much reach as a spear meanwhle the spears in warband were ass outside of being mounted, but even on a mount id prefer a big 2 handed axe over a spear
When Shad started talking about damage values in relation to TTRPGs I was immediately reminded of original Dungeons & Dragons (I'm talking OG white box D&D); specifically, I think of the fact that in the beginning every weapon in D&D did the same damage (1d6), but this was changed later with, I believe with Supplement I: Greyhawk, and the damage values we are now familiar with were introduced.
The reason for this, as I am led to understand, is that Gygax and the original crew of TSR were medieval weapons nerds and understood the different uses of each weapon. However, when D&D went to market, their audience did not have the same knowledge as they did; the consumers did not understand why one should pay more gold for a longsword than one would pay for a battle-axe when there was no explicit benefit to doing so provided in the rules. So, TSR amended this and gave weapons different damage values when they released Greyhawk to meet consumer expectations despite the change eschewing the more "realistic" approach to weapons in the first iteration of the game.
What I miss with new D&D is the flavor of weapon damage having a lot less importance in combat. Why can I slash a skeleton as well as I can bludgeon it?
@@MonkeyJedi99 Yeah, there are a bunch of resistances creatures have, but very few have vulnerabilities, and most of the time the physical damage types are handled with a binary magical/non-magical distinction all together rather than each type on its own.
No, it had to be changed because it was completly unbalanced. Not only was the sowrd more expensive, it also had less attacks than the dagger. Nothing to do with stupid consumers, that they wanted a balanced game.
@@TheWampam So, I'd like to first clarify that I never said anything about "stupid" consumers. I said they didn't understand why TSR made certain decisions; perhaps I could have made my point clearer by saying that this lack of understanding stemmed from an absence of knowledge. Not knowing something is not an indication that one is "stupid"; For instance, I do not know nearly as much about medieval weaponry as someone like Shad does, but that doesn't make me stupid.
Second, I never said that the change with damage shouldn't have been made. When I said there was no explicit benefit to buying a longsword in OD&D that was an indictment on the original game design. If TSR wanted to keep the damage values the same as originally written, they needed to have specific rules dedicated to what each weapon was intended to be used for per their historical uses. Instead they redefined the damage values to what we are familiar with today; this, in my opinion, was the right call for the sake of design simplicity.
@@envoyend9149 Also for junior and high school age people all those dice were just cool to look at and play with.
It was about Marketing !
its a great feeling when my homebrew system already has the mechanic that shadiversity makes a video on.
My homebrew rule for D&D is that daggers do 1d6 damage (same as short sword) but attacks against an aware enemy are attempted with disadvantage.
All sneak attacks, attacks of opportunity and initial attacks on an unaware enemy are rolled normally.
@@theobserver6579 but doesnt this just make the dagger even worse ?
@@Xornim
No, because it gets advantage on sneak attacks and it's concealable.
@@theobserver6579 sounds worse to me. Most combat is against aware enemies. Sounds like i would just use a short sword, and keep a dagger on me for backstabbing and nothing else.
@@LucasDrakel If most of your combat is against aware enemies & you're using a dagger, then that's half your fault & half the fault of whatever setting you're in.
Middle-Earth Roleplaying Game, back in the 80's, had a huge set of charts for all these things you consider in this video. With every critical hit you would consult a table for either crushing, slashing, puncturing, or unbalancing. And then you'd get various effects based on where and how they hit. There's a third party set of cards for 5e that attempts to do something similar, although it is a bit slimmed down from MERP.
The real truth is realistic combat in games just aren't as fun. You can't overburden combat, which needs to be fast paced and snappy, with lots of extra considerations. But it is always an interesting thought exercise, so I do appreciate these videos!
Yes I remember 66 used to be particularly Deadly
The entire Rules Law System (which included MERPS) was pretty good for that. I remember that a group that I played with ditched the extra damage from crits in D&D and started using the charts from the Rules Law System for determining what happened. We did the same for critical misses too.
I think my favorite was for arrows: You fire your arrow through the ears of your opponent, killing them instantly, and removing all ear wax.
I love Dark Heresy for this reason. It’s far from a perfect system, but it too has several tables correlating to hit location, damage type, and total amount of damage. Effects range from simply bruising your arm and losing use of it for the fight, to getting your leg so badly fried that it kills you from the shock.
Outside the absurdity of the ~5 whole pages dedicated to injuries, the combat can get kinda slow, which is where the lack of perfection starts to show. You’re spot on about combat needing to be fast paced, which Dark Heresy just isn’t that good at.
I think the extra detailed damage stuff is good in video games because it adds more nuance but the fighting can still be really fast.
@@tmac8396 i loved it till i realised it penalised armour too much. had to develop my own version
I think it is important to note that in many RPGs these weapons are being used to attack large non-human monsters. A dagger would be far less effective in hitting a vital organ on a 20 ft giant when compared to a longsword. It would be like try to kill someone in the real world with a sewing needle.
Yeah, his logic kinda falls apart when considering the sheer insanity of fantasy rpg monsters. But you also says that using melee weapons powet human strength designed for human against others humans against beings that can causally one hit kill due to their size is crazy to.
The spear argument still works though, realistically most spears are just daggers tapped to the end of a stick
@@cso5668 yes but that stick gives you the ability to penetrate deep enough to hit something important
Inside leg artery, cut that in a human and they pass out from blood lost within twenty seconds or less.
There is also a sweet spot in the calf or the back of the knee.
Once cut the leg used to have to be amputated cause they didn't have the knowledge skills to resew to arteries and veins back together.
I have been kicked in the ankle ball joint before and couldn't walk very well for a few days with a numb foot cause I couldn't put weight onto it without falling down. Now if you put a couple or more than a few heavy crossbow bolts into the ankle ball joint., the giant is going down for a back of the skull tap at point blank range with full kinetic impact.
Would it though ?
I think a slashing weapon would be even less effective against a giant monster, because the energy of the strike would be distributed on a very large surface, and thus the sword would only leave a very superficial wound.
Thrusting attacks and small cutting weapons would allow you to concentrate your strength on a single area and actually penetrate the skin. You would use less energy to do more damages, and this also makes it easier to harm weak points.
And when I'm talking about weak points I'm not even necessarily talking of eyes and heart. If you can sever a tendon in the feet, you could highly reduce the mobility of the monster.
A lot of weapons use a singular rock paper scissors scheme when they should use multiple. Swords are better against spears at close range but at less than close range a spear is better against swords.
That is true. I use to be part of a group that did simulated combat with wooden weapons and we would mainly use swords and shields to show the difference. I learned how spears could be handled and more effective against swords but also how to fight against spears. I've been using realistic methods in my book writing and even presented primitive weapons against metal ones to show the durability and their still weaknesses in metal armour such as archers and spears.
Well... it is too much of a simulation for many players. The Dark Eye has several range classes for melee combat. You need to do a successfull attack to get from the long range into closer range, if you fight s.o. wielding a polearm, while you have a sword.
You can’t really do that in a game like osrs, since the rock paper scissors scheme is the combat triangle, magic beats melee, melee beats ranged and ranged beats magic. Melee defence is the only type of defence that’s split into multiple types, those being crush, slash and piercing in addition there’s magic and ranged defence. Magic armor usually has the lowest defence but in turn it’s got some of the highest burst damage if you aren’t counting special attacks, ranged is a lot of fast dps, and melee is sustain damage.
Another thing, the strongest armor in game currently has a negative magic defence bonus, meaning magic will just completely ignore it, but anything else will barely hit it at all.
@@Vizeroy9 Even for RTS's, I would like it so that Spearmen would eviscerate swordsmen as a unit but when they are in hallways or flanked, the swordsmen would do the same to them.
Personally I think RTS's have way too much Tactics and should be more about actual strategy instead of focus firing.
In an RPG though, most of them don't seem to use spears anyway unfortunately but they should and the game should encourage you to use them when you can and to switch to a sword when you can't.
Also (especially with spear) it depends whether you're on your own or not.
A group of spearmen are SUPER FUCKING POWERFUL, a lone dude can get fucked.
I could imagine Shad and a biologist playing DnD talking about how the weapons and monsters are wrong and how they could work
I would watch that show.
So much so that Shad and his brother Jazza would go off and invent their own TTRPG
@@Maninawig Ironically they already have done that, it's called Cogent, really cool mechanics
@@jasonalen7459 I am glad you got my sarcasm. But thanks for the name. Someone else was asking about it.
@@Maninawig TedTalkRolePlayingGame?
I kinda dislike how flattened weapons get when you reduce them to damage, weight, and a handful special traits.
A halberd and a glaive in d&d 5e are functionally identical, but there's a huge difference in the weapons in real life.
nah l think they are identical irl
Welcome to being a 5e fighter. There are right and wrong choices for weapons and it mostly boils down to "bigger dice".
The thing about damage in games is that it doesn't represent wounds. A dagger deals less damage than a greatsword because daggers require less effort to avoid. Greatswords, on the other hand, have heavy sweeping attacks that require much more effort to avoid.
That shouldn't change the damage, just change the probability to hit and how many can be hit at a time.
@@OmniscientWarrior
Maybe, but a dagger doing more damage than a greatsword kinda kills the fantasy of using a giant sword.
@@kailastnam9793
what breaks is that your armor is not protecting the body. It's fine with having a weapon stronger than the other. What doesn't work is the illusion of swinging a sword is going to make the armor disappear.
14:44: "You could legitimately give slashing attacks a bonus to hit, whereas thrusts could do more damage."
You just described the sword mechanics of the _Betrayal at Krondor_ battle system. With one memorable exception: because it's literally designed for it, the rapier has a bonus to hit on _thrusting_ attacks. (As well as to damage.)
That was such a good game, especially for its time...
Morrowind did that too
@@Colouroutofspace4 Morrowind implemented weapons and armor a lot better than later and earlier games. Really loved it altogether.
@@Colouroutofspace4 More similar to Daggerfall, really. Morrowind has a 'best attack' that is always better to use. In Daggerfall, the attacks that did more damage had a lower chance to hit, and the attacks with a higher chance to hit did less damage.
Although, Shad wouldn't like the layout. Thrusts were most accurate and least damage, and swipes were base damage and accuracy, and chops did most damage with least accuracy.
The Author of the Krondor series actually mentions quite a few facts about weapons in his extended universe. It helps that the son of the main character of the series is a bastard sword user and is the main character of the krondor part of the series.
The problem with this take is Hitpoints in games do not only represent physical damage. They are your over all health. And this is calculated into the weapons damage output
the reason bigger weapons in games do more damage is because they have a greater chance of inflicting damage. Bypassing armor, harder to dodge etc etc.
Yes dagger usually have a lower damaging rating d4 as given the example in the video but the stab to the neck is usually falls under sneak attack and thats when the dagger user gets his sneak attack damage and hes doing far more damage then the warrior with a great axe.
Without that though the dagger user is having a harder time getting close only getting Nick's in here or there.
The spear has reach, that's why it does more HP damage then the dagger.
Understandable, but then it also depends on how the combat is implemented. In some games, the reach is one of the combat variables (I think it was even partially implemented in the Fallout games), where you have to get close enough first. And so, if there is enough spatial resolution, a warrior with a knife could inflict just as much damage as with an axe, or a spear. And the sneak attack would then count towards the probability of the hit and not the total damage.
Of course, if there's no movement in the game, or attack hit chance, or weapon speed (a card game for example), then yes, I totally agree.
@BlackMage Did you take into account that the armored opponent is ALSO armed?
Because a dagger will do jack if you don't get close and even in plate armor, you can't just shrug off being hit by a longsword when to rush in with your stubby dagger. Not to mention, that you can also use a longsword in close-quarter grabbling if you know how.
Don't just compare what a dagger COULD do to an armored opponent who is unarmed. Only an idiot would go "Yes, I choose the dagger against an armed opponent."
A dagger is what you bring out as a LAST resort. not the weapon of choice.
Funny story, RPGs in the earliest days initially had a much more realistic system. Almost all units had only one hit point, which was fairly realistic as once you get stabbed, even if you don't die, you're almost certainly done fighting for the day. It was basically all about landing hits and avoiding hits, rather than surviving a large number of hits.
The system evolved over time to increase the number of hit points you have because it's more fun that way. You can't have just one hit point when luck controls so much of the combat system, and not end up with a TPK in basically every adventure. So, games have generally evolved to have HP generally represent a nebulous "healthiness". Modern versions of DnD now say that hit points actually represent a mix of your luck, skill and willpower that protects you from fatal injury during combat.
Incidentally, Daggers usually have their damage low in order to reflect how they would be used. If you try to defeat a knight using a dagger in a frontal assault, you may as well leave a note to let your next of kin know how you'd like your body to be buried, 'cause you're not coming home. Brute forcing a fight with a dagger is just suicide and it's reflected in the low base damage. But its made up for by the dagger USUALLY having some kind of massive bonus to sneak attacks or critical hits, that results in the dagger doing far more damage than any other weapon when used correctly.
Actually, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice follows that philosophy of landing and receiving hits being more crucial than the number of hits landed. Really hope future games follow that Philosophy
Shad: "a Spear does the same damage as a Dagger because the blade is pretty much the same"
Leverage physics: "let me introduce myself"
Just like sword
I think he meant in the specific case of a thrust. If the spear blade is the same size as the dagger blade and they therefore achieve the same level of penetration in a thrusting attack, they should do similar amounts of damage.
If we are talking about elden ring in peticular, the lethalety of daggers and their ability to stike at vital areas are actualy implemented quite well in my opinion. In souls games most daggers do way more damage on critical attacks than the big weapons, these attacks are probably the closest thing to hitting a vital area in these games and show where weapons like daggers exell
@@AspiringDevil looks like you are the salty one because he already moved on to making normal videos
In most games that do that, including elden ring, it's not that much. All in all, it ends up being around the same as larger weapons. In elden ring it's only a 10% increase(excluding special weapons). As in any weapon that does more then 10% does more damage.
I mean it kind of makes sense for the damage to be about the same(organ piercing), but it should be a lot easier to pull out. So a faster animation.
Backstabs don't exist irl. Or if the opponent is so stoned that you can go behind him, you might as well save time and just stab him in the chest. There you go. Frontstabs are justified
@@sakesaurus1706 frontstabs do exist and they are called parrys
@@lightningpenguin8937 to be fair, from Software has nerfed crits pretty bad in elden ring. In dark souls 3 the damage could be increased by 300% for daggers when doing a critical attack. I guess from a gameplay perspective the devs thaught this was to strong which is why its not that good in elden ring. Still you can still see that that they tried to make a realitic representation of the lethalety of daggers even if it's not that extrem anymore
Depends how you consider an “attack roll” in DnD. It may just be that you landed a strike in a general area. Damage can accounts for angle of contact , force, and where it went.
That's how I interpret it. Roll first to see if you hit at all, then the damage roll determines how well that hit landed.
Critical hits get bonus damage potential to emphasize that you hit very well (though that can effectively fumble with poor rolls) and critical fails are incapable of dealing damage due to a guaranteed miss (because even a 2 on the die COULD get buffed enough to hit some enemies, so they have that distinction).
@@JarieSuicune And rogues' sneak attack damage (which doesn't always require sneaking) represents a more deliberately chosen wound location.
There's also the abstraction that is HP. It's not just straight damage the character can take. It's essentially an indicator of the character's ability to avoid taking lethal hits, and it comes from a mix of sustained damage, stamina, focus, and skill.
That kind of abstraction also explains why things like drugs/medicine and resting for a few hours can "heal" you up. Or floor ice cream.
@@AnotherDuck Yes, the only problem is, that HP mostly are treated like a vitality gauge. Which then leads to weird interpretations.
Also I think at some point you just have to accept, that it's gamefying and in a world of make belief 4 cats can kill a commoner.
Also, damage doesn't mean just "damage", in most games it means "stopping force"
As a player and DM for everyone over a decade, I can say all your points take are valid but a system of that complexity would big down RPGs to 90% combat due to calculations and 10% RP. I do completely understand and agree with your points here and in your armor video.
I don't necessarily feel so.
A lot of Shad's propositions would actually simplify the attack rolls, like using the attack roll to determine damages instead of a separate damage rolls.
Not necessarily. That's just what happens when you start with the health points+rigid turns and then tack on 20 different mechanics to try and make attack distinct. Since you started with numbers, you then add more numbers, more complicated formulas and more conditions, especially when you try to account for stuff like reach which doesn't matter when characters move one at the time and can just run up to an enemy who's frozen cause it's not their turn.
Instead if you start with an RPG system that for example has just Light/Medium/Heavy Wounds and doesn't use turn-based initiative, you can account for these things way easily. "Both a dagger and a spear will inflict a Medium Wound under most circumstances, but since you have only a dagger and are trying to close in on somebody with a spear, you have to first roll to even get into reach without being stabbed, only then can you try to roll to attack."
IMO that's 10x the RP you're ever going to get in your typical D&D combat where you just use whatever weapon deals the most damage and just attack the same way on every turn, because why would you care about whether your opponent has a spear that does 1d6 damage or a sword that does 1d6 damage?
Ive been a dm for over 10 years and i reinvited combat for my players long ago, just think more realisticaly and drop the books make your own system and it becones so much better all my players say my version of dnd is the best they have played and prefer playing my dnd to every game on the market, very little math needed! i suck at math just think more ralistically and do your own thing no need to follow the same flawed system for dnd
@@jklolnikampoop Could you share your system ? I know someone who would be curious to look at it ^^
@@SolariusLunarius i wish i could it takes me about 2 hours generally with new players to explain how we play and then give a few examples for people to catch on, besides im not saying my system is the best either, everyone dms differently. I think what the wizards of the coast gave us is a guideline to infinite possiblities but should only be considered a learning tool for new DM's eventually to become a craftsman you need to drop the training weels and create your own blend, if you really care to know my particular system maybe we can work something out over discord, but my only point here is to validate and congratulate shad on daring to shake up gaming and remind people just because we have been doing something one way for awhile now does not mean their is not a better way to do so
Counterargument: Against human-sized enemies, even if two weapons produce the same wound, they don't necessarily produce the same damage. A dagger thrust may result in the same wound as a thrust with a spear, but the spear has more momentum, and that momentum has to go somewhere. The sudden acceleration on impact can result in the jostling around of internal organs, resulting in bruising, concussion, and/or loss of mental acuity, all of which can justify the greater damage potential.
If the enemy is much heavier than a human and has thicker skin, the weight behind a blow will no longer be able to jostle the opponent around, but will instead contribute to the depth of the wound.
If the enemy is much heavier than a human and does not have thick skin, the weight behind a blow will not matter, and only the length of the weapon's blade will matter. For the purpose of realism, it does make sense for a dagger thrust and a spear thrust to deal similar damage (as long as the spear isn't over-penetrating), but this case ends up as an outlier, and in general, it's not worth it to create a separate damage system to account for this particular case.
Speaking from experience, it feels about the same.
@@brijekavervix7340 You got stabbed with a knife AND a spear?
Exactly. Bigger weapons have fulcrum and have leverage
@@WingMaster562 hrrrmmmm not really when thrusting
there is also the thing he mentioned early that daggers doing so little damage especially if you where to strike them in a vulnerable area
Daggers in a lot of games do high crit damage more then most if not any other weapon
I mean id rather use a sword then a dagger in a fight face to face with my opponent and just use the dagger when I caught them off guard
I have seen men stabbed several times, up to 17 times in the chest and back and surviving long enough to reach the hospital I used to work in.
Heard a story from an old theater teacher. She knew a man (50 ish I think) who was a professional and university professor of Mime. He stabbed himself 15 or so times in the torso and lived to be prosecuted for the murder of the woman next to him. The point of the story was that his craft required such immaculate physical condition, he survived something that presumably would have killed someone in less shape. Was that a stretch or is it as impressive as it sounds?
Good thing they weren't out of range then. And that they attacker didn't take the time/opportunity(?) to make sure of the kill.
And that hospitals exist in many places and have modern medicine, unlike how it seems the medieval times were, which is how most fantasy is depicted.
@@EvelyntMild Did the news told why he stabbed himself that much? Usually those many stabs come from homicides where there is rage and hate involved.
@@allopez8563 He was a professor and he had an affair with a student. She was going to expose it, so he killed her then tried to kill himself.
I imagine if you are a good person, in general, you would hate yourself for killing a person like he did. Maybe that's why he stabbed himself so many times.
@@EvelyntMild I personally have a more cynical take on things. Maybe that chap was mentally ill, and stabbed himself like that in a paroxysm of self-harm. Or perhaps he wanted to make the murder of his paramour look like a random attack--someone stabbed her to death, and tried to kill him as well? It's not unheard of for murderers--especially those who murder intimate partners--to also inflict injuries on themselves to try to make it look as if a third party attacked them. Some people have nearly gotten away with such crimes.
I imagine that in this case, though, any forensic scientist worth his/her salt would be able to tell from the angle and depth of the stab wounds that they were likely self-inflicted as opposed to inflicted by a third party. It's similar to how one can tell the difference between a gunshot wound to the head that was a suicide vs. a homicide.
To be fair, unless hit in a particularly vulnerable spot, people tend to be stupidly resistant to stabbing. Daggers were used in medieval times to finish armored foes that you have grappled to the ground so you could stab them in the weakspots such as the neck, the heart, the armpit, the head, etc.
Meanwhile, weapons like the spear, while being basically daggers on a stick, by their mass and the capacity you have to put more weight on the thrust, they have a trauma component increasing the size of the wound. Even if a dagger and the tip of the spear have the same size, same sharpness, same mass, and penetrate the same amount of flesh, the spear wins because it'll apply more force and more trauma, and even more so if you're on horseback.
Sure, there are very few games/RPGs that take into account the properties of a weapon such as blunt/pierce/slash damage types, even fewer that consider the amount of force you can do with the weapon or take into account different damage types depending on the type of attack (New World does this for example, with a sword deal pierce damage on a thrust, and slash damage on a cut) and even fewer games that take into account the force you deal with different attacks (an overhead strike carries more force than a short horizontal slash), and almost none take into account where the weapon strikes unless it's a dedicated simulator.
I'm guessing this is done not to overcomplicate things, but yeah, in a perfect game we'd have:
-Damage breakdown depending on the weapon (Slash, Blunt, Pierce)
-Damage breakdown depending on the strike used (I.e: Pierce damage on a thrust, slash damage on a cut, a mix of slash and blunt when hitting someone with a heavy axe, etc.)
-Damage modification depending on the force of the attack used
-Damage modification depending on the area it strikes
-Damage modification depending on the armor used by the opponent (i.e: a mail being stupidly good at stopping slash attacks but not so good against blunt damage)
Reminds me of the damage breakdown for the original Mount&Blade.
I agree and have a have a bit simplfied version of what you have in my Universal TT Wargame/RPG.... And the game has more of a tacical focus so chailmail is just cheaper and weaker plate armor but Peice can bypass armor completly but do less damage... To make it easier to play and set up a match/character.
Sounds like you wanna play Kingdome Come:Deliverance. Exactly the system you’re describing, and hits can deal more or less damage depending on where you hit the enemy depending on their armour
Mount and blade does a decent job of this. Your movement on and off horse back effect the relative weapon speed and therefore damage. For example, swinging your vlouge at a standing man while riding full speed on your horse deals around 5 times the max health of almost all troops. Meanwhile if you hit an equally armored man on horseback while he's running away from you you might only deal about half the max health of a troop.
@@Gr3nadgr3gory The system also exists in games like Mordhau as well. Though I think Warband is the only one that accounts for momentum enough
I like systems where damage is derived in most part from who good of a hit you scored.
Like maybe all weapons have a low "base damage", to signify what really terrible hits would do. But the better your hit result, you get damage multipliers and bonuses.
Making sure that an elite assassin with high skills in using a dagger will deal lethal blows, while an average peasant using the exact same dagger won't be as likely to kill when using it.
Real-life doesn't always make for good game design, though. Not that you can't make a great game that tries to be hyper realistic in one way or the other, because you can. Just that some times in order to get what you want, you need to bend the rules, as reality can often times be quite restrictive in that sense. Not in one aspect in particular, just in general.
Very true. Striking a balance isn't always easy - there are a few games that go for complete realism and fail miserably in the fun department, others do it very well.
Imagine if each weapon had 3 attack options for each damage type: slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning. Examples are written below. Of course, this would destroy weapon balance and also overcomplicate the game for no real difference except for the few monsters with physical damage resistance without having complete physical immunity.
- For long swords, it could be 1d8 slashing, 1d6 piercing (stabbing), and 1d3 bludgeoning (pommel strike).
- A dagger could be 1d4 slashing, 1d6 piercing, and 1d2 bludgeoning.
- A hand axe might be 1d6 slashing, 1d2 piercing (tip of the axe blade), and 1d4 bludgeoning (back of the axe head).
- And the most absurd weapon, the pole axe does 1d10 slashing, 1d8 piercing, and 1d8 bludgeoning.
Agreed, but I think there's an important distinction to make and it's where a lot of people get hung up and don't know why. Making mechanics of your game model realism isn't balanced or fun, there are very obviously overpowered options and untenable options (Dagger vs Polearm for example).
But that doesn't mean you don't want your game to "appeal to realism". In this sense you want the way you're game works to be logical. If i'm playing a mortal chatacter it would follow suit that if you stabbed them, they would suffer injury much like you and I would. How a game decides to handle this is up to the game.
D&D fails to appeal to realism when it comes to weapons for some because of 2 factors. HP bloat in which a character is attacked multiple times and suffers no injury or immediate risk of death. And weapon damage (as discussed in this video).
You can make the argument that your HP represents your character's battle experience and stamina to avoid taking hits until their HP dives to 0 at which point they've taken a mortal blow. But it starts to fall apart when you look at things like fall damage, getting up after successful death saving throws like nothing happened, lack of injuries or wounds, the disparity in how certain attacks consume more hp "stamina" to avoid than others and the fact that AC already exists as your "avoid injury" statistics causing redundant design.
Ultimately people are allowed to like whatever they want, including how HP and Damage work in their game of choice. That doesn't mean you have to agree or like it (I certainly don't), but it's not hurting our enjoyment if we tamper with the rules or play a different game. What's more important is to understand how the underlying mechanics work together to isolate the issue and fix it at the root cause. Elsewise you're just covering up the issue with a fresh coat of paint and not really fixing anything at all.
I think in this video Shad properly outlines an issue he had with the game's appeal to realism, but fails to identify the root cause or come up with a solution that fixes it appropriately. But at the very least it starts a discussion and allows for a platform to gain a greater breadth of understanding on the subject.
Sorry for the wall of text. Have a good one.
@@asthmeresivolisk3129 I have to disagree with you on the dnd part as fighting is entirely up to the DM how your battle is described how the saving throws get ups and attacks are all up to the dm to decide so they could take your damage and translate it to a quick slash or the removal of a head so any issues with hp bloat would mostly come from how the dm has decided to handle the multiple hits
Fantastic settings shouldn't follow realism in combat as you play to feel powerful I'd be greatly disappointed if a fantasy games biggest sword wasn't a massive stupid chunk of metal theres a balance between not only realism and fantasy silliness but between enjoyment of combat and it feeling like a chore
@@milkinanime7047 Well, when talking about "Appeal to realism", what I'm actually describing is "Appeal to Logic". Basically if anything doesn't fit within the logic of a universe, then immersion is broken. This can apply even to a magical universe such as D&D, certain things work in a certain way. Simple things such as magical fire behaves differently than actual fire, or that monks have a higher movement speed are logical rules that D&D posits to contextualize your experience and give you point of reference to how things are supposed to work. If something breaks those points of logic things start to fall apart.
I agree the DM can describe events however they like, but your descriptions don't change the number of attacks that need to be successfully made to actually kill something. I focus more on game design and how it influences narrative design so I tend to strip things down to their core. I'm more concerned with how the system feels to play without intervention of the more imaginative elements of the human mind. Kind of like how when you play a video game, different games, by design of their controls and options make you feel differently. Some games make you feel weak, others make you feel strong while others make you feel like you're on some grand adventure. These design points aren't exclusive from one another, but by changing the numbers and changing the animations you can massively impact how a game feels.
GMs being amazing at narrative and description are just the "Graphics" of the game you play. And while this is a very appealing part, it's not essential to a game's design and in some cases acts as a band aid to cover design flaws that justifiable may need some ironing out. It doesn't make the game bad, it simply means the designers are human and make mistakes or miscalculations. And that's fine, different people want to play different games. A "design flaw" to me, may very well be a highly enjoyable mechanic to another.
I appreciate your response and think it presents an important point, the power of narration. It's an integral portion to our hobby, and a good talking point. It frames the situations players find themselves in and is a tool players can use to inject their own creativity into the campaign. So good points there.
Fun fact about the daggers in Elden ring: they actually do way more damage than other weapons when preforming critical strikes! It's why in pvp lot of players keep a dagger in their back pocket for finishing off foes, interestingly similarly to medieval combat.
in my experience everyone spams aoe attacks when they gang bang you.
I'm guessing it's the 40% bonus dagger. Forget what it was called.
@@lightningpenguin8937 Misericorde, I'm playing a character using that dagger, with parry and flame of the redmanes to break enemies' stance. The crits deal about as much damage at level 30 as the biggest heavy attacks in the endgame.
That opening skit also reminds me how level mechanics ruin immersion in videogames. In Skyrim for example you could slash a bare chested bandit with a huge two handed sword and he wouldn't flinch because he has a couple of levels on you.
Bandit: Never should have come here!
Dragonborn: What the heck dude, I just set your head on fire?!
It only ruins it in so far as Skyrim is borderline unplayable if HP didn't exist and everything was treated like they had 5 HP. If you want most damage to be lethal, you need a way to avoid attacks, and that only works in third person action combat games with more focus on attack-dedication than hack and slash (e.g. Dark Souls).
So you have to pick one. First person combat, or constant lethal damage.
@@AnaseSkyrider Skyrim has Armor, they "could" have balanced it with that, instead they just inflate HP and Damage number and made Armor a weird system of % that is shown in arbitrary numbers.
There are actually mods that try to make it more realistic with higher damage and better defences, problem is the automatic kill animations ignore any dodging or blocking and just kill you/the enemy when a hit "would" be lethal. There was also some reason for why the animation couldnt be stopped.
@@AnaseSkyrider I wouldn't jump to the extreme of everything having 5 HP, but i would like a bit more consequence to attacking a naked enemy. At least something beyond seeing them moonwalk away from me when i hit them.
On the topic of dodging in first person, you could do like Skyrim did for rolling. There's a perk in the Sneak Tree called Silent Roll and it's used to speed up when sneaking. In third person it looks like what it is, a roll. In first person, it looks like a small dash foward, which would sacrifice a bit of immersion, but you could implement that as a dodge mechanic. It would be better then the one they have where the npc just awakwardly slides to the side to avoid projectiles.
There is also back stepping, like in Dying Light.
**Shoots enemy in the head with an arrow**
"Must have been the wind"
Shoutout to the tree for dealing with Shad's abuse this episode. I see you tree, and I appreciate you
Watching Shad split a carrot with a longsword is the most Shad thing I could have expected him to do.
Those skits at the beginning of some vids always crack me up
I appreciate the analysis, but I still enjoy the simplicity of bigger weapon = more damage. What you propose would take a fair amount of overhaul for most games in general. For future games good stuff to follow for a more realistic feel for those seeking it.
I think Shad's suggestion is putting bigger weapon = higher hit chance. For any sharp weapons, the amount of damage shouldn't depend on the weapon size/weight that much. Their damage per hit should be mostly about the sharpness. Meanwhile, XP / skill level / player level will be also mostly about hit chance + hit rate. "bigger weapon = more damage" will be applied only for non-bladed attack and armor breaking.
Take D&D 5e... for them to convert to Shad's suggestions... switch all weapons to 1d8 dmg... but, a few more weapons gain the reach property. Also, daggers become the base attack, with all other weapons gaining +1 to hit per size category larger.
Making it more complex, some weapons may have multiple damage types that you pick when you swing. Longsword : piercing (thrust tip), or slashing (swing edge). Using piercing gives +1 to hit. Using a swing (slashing or bludgeoning) gives : if you miss your initial target, you can re-roll that attack but against another target that is adjacent to both you and the initial target.
Two Weapon Fighting : When using a second weapon in the off-hand, it has a -1 to hit.
Monks : +1 dmg? +1 to hit?
While not taking it fully inline, this is close enough. It also makes it so that daggers are actually useful. I only carry daggers because 'why wouldn't I', and I only use them because 'I can't do anything else right now'. I mean, I'm pretty it would be better to get Magic Initiate feat for a damage cantrip... rather than put together a complex build to make daggers worth it.
@@billyswong I'm pretty sure you're right on the mark as far as what shad was getting at that doesn't change the fact that I still enjoy the simplicity of big weapon = more damage
@@Esperologist yeah that's exactly what I'm getting at just reading your explanation of how complicated it would be to convert 5e dungeons and dragons to A system that is indicative of what shad is getting at would be a monstrous undertaking making the game far more complex than I think a majority of people want for their casual enjoyment.
@@christophershrimplin1849 "Monstrous undertaking"? There are so few weapons in core 5e! I've been considering making some changes like this to them for my group to add some actual flavor to combat. And it would probably help them feel a bit more powerful too, having more ways to control the battlefield... until they realize enemies get that same benefit! >_< Mwa ha ha!
Also, you don't have to flatline all weapons into having the same damage either. Some really would be expected to do a bit more/less damage than another one and that is totally fine to reflect in gameplay. (Nunchucks vs spear vs Giant Hammer, for example).
The biggest change would actually be implementing armor types and having players get used to declaring which type of attack they are doing when a weapon has multiple damage types. A number of games already have you do that constantly so there is NO way anyone can legitimately argue that it is too much brain-juice usage for players to handle. (Pokemon, for example. Learning type matchups is core to the series and it has been around for nearly 30 years now and little children handle that medium-complex layout just fine. You are smarter, or at least more knowledgeable, than a 5 year old.)
I actually have been toying with a “build your weapon” system for the ttrpg I’ve been slowly developing instead of a list of already statted out weapons. The system itself kind of hits on what you mentioned about a better attack doing less damage than one that was less successful doesn’t make sense. The bare basics of an attack is an evasion roll on the defender’s side, and a “to hit” roll on the attacker’s side. Attacks have a “maximum” damage that they can reach and your attack does 1 point of damage up to said maximum for every point over the defender’s roll that you rolled. There are more intricacies with armor and crits and what not, but that’s the basics.
As for the “build your own weapon” system, I figure some basic properties are chosen, some choices locking out others to prevent illogical weapons.
I figure the basic five choices that every weapon would have are: Effective Range, Attack Speed, Weight, Damage Type, and Material. Each would come with an upside and a downside to simulate how varied weapons can be. You could combine certain elements to negate the downside, just as throughout history we’ve altered weapons to overcome weaknesses of their predecessors.
Range would be simple. Start with Melee or Ranged, and Melee would have 3 categories. Short (1 square away), Medium (2 squares away), and Long (3 squares away). Based on your one video about range, I’d say that adding that 3rd category of reach makes sense for certain weapons, though it would have disadvantages, of course, if anyone were to get into short range.
Attack speed: Fast, Normal, Slow. Seems pretty simple for this and would allow for examples like the one in this video of the 2 handed sword being a fairly speedy thing to use, at least compared to animations in games like Elden Ring.
Weight: Light, Medium, Heavy. To allow for things like meat cleavers or machetes.
Damage Type: Main ones would be your bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. Magical weapons might have special types. A weapon could definitely have more than one since there are plenty of examples multi-damage type weapons irl and since a LOT of blades can thrust or cut depending on the type of attack you use.
Material: No hard and fast specifics for this, though you could maybe just lump it as wood, metal, or stone for the barebones properties and expand from there into if there is a difference between silver and steel, oak or birch, if there’s a special magical crystal that can be forged into a weapon and it has unique properties, etc. Would be an entirely setting specific thing, but I’d say an important factor to consider.
Outside of magical weapons with specific enchantments on them, I’d say this would cover the bases of allowing a player to craft that one specific weapon they want to use and keep it as realistic as possible by assigning relevant mechanics to each property.
So far that mainly covers just melee weapons though. You could maybe implement a similar system for ranged where weight is the draw weight and then attack speed determines whether it’s arrows you pull from a quiver, bolts you need to load into a crossbow, or if the setting allows it, if it’s loaded ammunition for a firearm. Damage type would just be what types of arrows, bolts, or other ammunition it uses.
Considered maybe having a “feat” type system for weapons as well, but honestly I think those main 5 properties would just about cover everything. Any of the feats I can think up would just be things you could tie into any of the 5 properties already listed. Are there any properties I maybe missed? So far haven’t really thought up mechanics, as there’s some base stuff about the system I still need to figure out first, but I think that it’s a good start to work on the mechanics of later.
How does this system encourage innovative gameplay? not saying that it's a bad idea, far from it, I love when people experiment with TTRPG ideas. But putting aside the customizability of weapons on range, damage, weight etc. how will this change how a player plays your game? To break down this question more specifically let's ask smaller questions that build a bigger picture and make sure the design is robust enough to handle what it's supposed to be good at, which is combat obviously.
First question I like to ask myself when designing something for combat: What is combat supposed to look like? Do you want punchy combat where people drop in 1-3 direct hits? Do you want skill based combat where combatants try to position themselves, predict their opponent's moves and choose from a list of possible attack and defense techniques as appropriate? Do you want a simple hack n slash were 2 dipshits stand across from each other until one drops to 0 HP? Do you want narrative combat where player's descriptions of their actions are more loose for interpretation and where theater of the mind is more appropriate?
Once you have a rough idea of the type of combat you want to emulate it's time to rope in mechanics that can support the base idea. When it comes to mechanics use the K.I.S.S system (keep it simple stupid). Too much clutter in the design spaces will make combat take forever, and it will also make remembering rules a pain. For the mechanical portion: Do you want to use dice? Do you want to use cards? Do you want to use narrative devices? Do you want to use character aspects like flaws, perks, emotions, mental states, etc.? I'd advise to only pick one mechanical option to employ. Once the mechanical option has been chosen how do you use it to model the type of gameplay you want to design? Do player's make checks against target numbers? Do players play cards simultaneously face down and reveal them to resolve a single turn? Do players say what happened and drain a resource to make it true or else pay the price of haughtiness? And lastly, when it comes to resolution how do you make it interesting? For your system you seem to wish to keep dice, some things to consider then: How much does the dice contribute to success/failure versus a character's own skill/ability? In D&D the Dice controls almost 100%-80% of a character's capability at any one time which causes it to be very erratic. Other systems go the opposite way where a very skilled player essentially cannot fail a roll. Does your system have a type of character fatigue that makes it so they can succeed easily at first but it gets harder to succeed the longer a struggle goes on? Or perhaps they gain injuries which cripple their capability. Or maybe it's the other way around and they start the fight with low odds of success and build a "pool of points" as the struggle goes on to spend on powerful actions intended to end a conflict?
Lastly we focus on the meat of the subject, customizable weapons. Since the customization is the main focus you probably don't want to focus on giving players techniques, skills or stats that improve their combat ability like in real life. Instead you may want to focus on the build of your weapon setting the standard for their checks as well as limiting the types of techniques or skills they're allowed to use and just assume everyone is an expert weapon user. That way the dynamic design of your weapons gets center stage to shine and truly makes your system unique. With that in mind, go through all your combinations (especially the extreme ends) and see if certain weapon combos are either A) useless or so niche that you can't expect to use it in 90% of situations or B) overpowered and a MUST PICK option to stay viable. For such results simply double or halve the numbers as appropriate until the game starts to balance itself out. BIG ADJUSTMENTS are much quicker and more efficient at the early stages of design. Smaller fine tune changes are reserved for post beta. Make sure the game itself has a FUN CORE GAMEPLAY LOOP before going into the nitty gritty as well. If you can't justify adding something to the game, then don't, you'll only water down the gameplay or accidentally make a "noob trap". Make just a couple of options (3 weapon heads, 2 handles, 3 weight classes, 3 damage types, forgo the materials at the start as they modify non-gameplay related things like numbers and stuff that aren't part of active participation) and then just test the combos, figure out how the combos feel. And once you have a core identity and purpose for the parts then start expanding from there. The objective is to make something you can play and enjoy playing FIRST then figuring out how to expand from this small core. Don't drown yourself in design Hell right of the bat, again the good ole K.I.S.S. strategy will save your ass for sure. Once you're comfortable with what you have then you can expand.
Alrighty then. Sorry for the wall of text, just love to see people making cool ideas and what not. Hope this helps in any small way and good luck on your project. Lemme know if you have any feedback yourself as I'm interested to see where this goes for you.
@@asthmeresivolisk3129 my guy it’s just a side project I slowly work on. It’s not some deep thing I’m trying to nail down perfectly and market in any capacity. Genuinely am not going to read all that. There is still a LOT I have to nail down at the system’s core before I even worry about the exact mechanics. Regardless of mechanics, weapon customization can fit into any of it. The mechanics of what each weight category, range category, etc. mean can vary based on the needs of the core system.
My main issue with weapons in ttrpgs is that “well this weapon does x damage because the rules say so” rather than “well because of x y and z, that’s why this damage number or special property exist on the weapon.” I don’t need a comment that’s mini course on game design, it’s just something for fun I do when I’m bored lmfao, it doesn’t need to be perfect 🤷🏻♂️
Same but my Universal TT Waragame/RPG uses moves like in Pokemon so building a weapon is just what are you rolling? What does it hit on? and how big is it for reach? also do you want enchantments/ attachments on it? Which in my game you have premade stuff like 20-60 weapons in the fantasy/historical and Steampunk/Pre-modern Edition alone... Which have been the easyest of the Move containers to put in game the hardest is magic and equipenmt like gernades and toolkits for me. Which you concept looks great to! maybe we could look over each others games and playtest? Mines is about to go into beta.
@@asthmeresivolisk3129 All good advice
@@gameraven13 Sorry, my bad. I tend to get carried away. I also like designing systems as a hobby. I just thought that with such a long comment you were open to that kind of information, but I leapt in before asking. Good luck to you and have a good one.
A wonderfully informative video. Also the ad was fantastic
Vagrant story had a great sistem of hiting specific parts of the body of the enemy. Based on you position and size/range of the weapon, you only could hit some parts , also, some location suffer more damage than others. You should check it out.
Similar to Parasite Eve.
I'm not aware of any other games that came up with that style.
I see you're a man of culture aswell
That game was great, really wish it had continued on. Story had so much potential, combat had so much room to grow, just a great overall game.
@@DaedLizrad yeah... maybe it didn't sell as well as they expected, such a shame. Was a pretty hard game too...
Literally the first hello fresh ad I've watched in its entirety. Well done Shad!
There is a whole "eat like a hobbit" video this gang did that was pretty much a Hello Fresh gluttony demonstration.
This has always been a pet peeve of mine. In World of Darkness, we alleviated it when we switched to rolling your Str/Dex and melee/firearm stat and the damage was equal to the damage number listed for the weapon (which usually was supposed to tell how many dice would roll, but we made it a base damage number) + any numbers over the target number for the opponents armor+defense. Can’t remember if it was in the book or homebrew, but I remember it made weapons more formidable.
I really appreciate the ideas you go over in this video, and they're definitely all strong and valid points from a realism-standpoint. The thing I would add is that all of this somewhat overlooks the reasons a lot of differences in these weapons might exist in terms of game balance. Using the D&D Dagger for example, while it does less damage compared to other bladed weapons in game, the things that balance this out on the whole are its non-damage attributes. The general availability of daggers as a weapon (you can probably find them almost anywhere in a game session), their light weight allowing you to carry more, their versatility as weapons that can be thrown and have the finesse property so they rely on different stats to hit and deal their damage; all of those concepts are also considered when assigning that 1d4 damage. So even if in reality they should deal the same damage when striking as many swords, in the context of designing and balancing a game, all the other game systems they interact with besides the damage they deal are just as important.
Yeah, this. Weapons in rpgs are generally designed for gameplay balance and to make sure they're all useful, not for realism. Sometimes in outright defiance of realism with 'rule of cool but impractical irl' weapons like the flail etc.
Plus, there is a bit of an equalizer with the fact that you add your str or dex modifier to the weapon attack in D&D. A dagger 1d4 is only on average hitting for 1 less compared to a 1d6 short sword. If you have your stat capped, that's an average of 7.5 per hit for the dagger and an average of 8.5 per hit on the short sword and so on. There is a difference, and that difference does add up over time, but on an individual hit the difference isn't super massive in D&D at least.
I can take or leave realistic weapon animations. So long as the game is fun to play and the options given balanced to some degree, I'm fine. Realistic animations, if they can manage the above, are a nice flourish but not at all needed for me to enjoy it.
Speaking as a bit of a tank enthusiast, I can see some similarities. Most people tend to think, "More armor and firepower makes a stronger, better tank," not necessarily. The Sherman Firefly had a very powerful 17 pounder gun causing many people to think that it was one of the best variants, if not the best. The problem was that the gun was so long they had put it in sideways and cut a hole in the back to stick the radio outside in order for it to even work, and even then the loading could get awkward.
The troops also preferred the M4 Sherman with the 75 because it has better explosive ammo. Although it was less effective against the German heavies it was much better against infantry and fixed positions.
Well, it wasn't comfortable. But it DID STOPPED Germans Tigers, Panthers and Panzer IVs at long range while the M4 Sherman could not. If not, the British wouldn't keep using it, it got the job done and celebrated for its capability. Loading is awkward, but it didn't stop the tank from shooting. The 17 Pounder was even cramped on M10s to be the Achilles, simply because the British found the gun to be functional, uncomfortable yes, but it didn't stop it from killing Tigers and Panthers.
The compromised was made cause there's not much choice, either you kill them or they kill you.
For people reading this comment, see this: ruclips.net/video/LmDM5LqZFSw/видео.html for a visualization
@@ihatecabbage7270 I am not saying it wasn't functional, but that is often overrated. The M4A3E8 had a strong gun as well and I've never heard of loading problems. Also, why did you mention the Panzer IV? The standard 75mm gun on the Sherman was more than capable of taking out the Panzer IV.
@@roninkraut6873 There's arguably another reason why troops preferred the M4 Sherman. with the 75mm gun. Being in one of those Shermans meant that your CO was _much_ less likely to send you out on tank-hunting missions against Tigers and Panthers. Shooting up enemy infantry and MG nests which cannot even scratch the paint on your hull is fun. Creeping through an enemy-held town to try to find and eliminate a Panzer V Panther or Panzer VI Tiger that you don't know exactly where it is is a sphincter-clenching experience.
Thus, if you were in a Sherman with the 75mm, your chances of surviving the war were ironically greater, as you were a lot less likely to be sent on extremely dangerous missions vs. being in a tank with the 'better' gun. The poor ergonomics of the Sherman Firefly was another reason why it was disliked.
Shad this is an almost perfectly times video! Im currently developing my own ttrpg and the world, a low fantasy one with magic, and I wanted to keep combat quite realistic. Had real problems wrapping my head around the combat and damage dealing part so this is a video sent from heaven! One thing im still trying to get right is how would one fit in attribute scaling for giants for example etc.
Problem is reality is boring and imbalanced.
@@TheMajorStranger Balance is overrated anyway (unless you're doing a competitive game), it's more important for the player to have fun and many times that's achieved by using broken and unbalanced characters/tactics.
@@Greideren Sure man, just make a game where everything get crushed by Spears. Don't forget that if you want realism, you have to be aware that most soldier on the battlefield didn't had chainmail or plate armor. Tell me how long you'll have fun in that game where the best strat is poke and pull back.
@@TheMajorStranger Anything can be fun if it's flashy enough. And I'm only half joking, an important part of making the combat in a game fun is to make it feel powerful and also making it flashy so as to not bore the player after seeing the same animations multiple times.
@@TheMajorStranger So reality is dark souls 1 pvp?
First off, great video! And obviously there's always an opportunity cost to combat complexity. You can caveat for realism until the cows come home, but then you end up with more math, or endless reference charts, or some other level of complexity that may not be as satisfying to actually play, because you're then at higher odds of breaking immersion because of the extra steps. I'll just make a few points about D&D specifically, because it's in my wheelhouse. I'd say that while yes, it does seem silly to have a dagger do 1d4 (2.5 average) and a longsword do 1d10 when two-handed (5.5 average) - more than double - but you're neglecting the other sources of damage boost. Anyone at mid level is going to have 20 in their combat stat, and just for the sake of example let's say they have a +1 weapon. Now you're looking at 1d4+6 vs 1d10+6 - 8.5 and 11.5 average respectively. I also feel there's a misunderstanding about hit points - not necessarily with the author of the video but just more broadly speaking. Hit points are not physical health. Every thing that 'hits' you and removes 'hit points' doesn't even have to make physical contact! Hit points have always been an abstraction that blends luck, experience, morale, skill and training, and of course some aspect of physical health. Even going all the way back to the first edition of D&D, this was the case, explicitly. This is also the reason that D&D has pushed back against the idea of a separate 'morale' concept or mechanic - you already have a morale system - your hit points!
Now against some targets - huge dragons or giants or something, you probably *are* making physical contact a lot more - but these types of creatures generally have high constitution and a large amount of hit dice, so that's where the large HP pool is accounted for. But the way I look at it is like this - any point of damage is lethal to a target, *if* that target has one hit point left. Now this seems obvious, but the point here is that when you're down to 1 HP, you've exhausted your luck, you're demoralized, you're off-balance, you've taken some scrapes here and there, and only now and only then when someone hits you do you actually take the full brunt of the attack. So yes, you absolutely can kill someone with a single well placed stab with a small weapon. But it's only at the point of exhausting the rest of their pool of HP that that happens. It's why when I'm DMing I try not to always describe the ramifications of high damage attacks as actually making intense physical contact, not until the target is low on hitpoints. Or, more accurately, I try to describe the damage based off of the proportion of their HP the attack removes. If you have 100 hit points, and take 10 hits each doing 10 damage, only the last one (or maybe two) probably make actual physical contact with your body in a way that would actually cause injury, because those hits are taking 50% and then 100% of your hitpoints away respectively.
Anyway, there's absolutely some inconsistencies and odd quirks of how any given game treats combat and damage, and it should be a question of maximum verisimilitude vs. maximum efficiency and maximum fun. Thanks for the video!
Thinking about this, A good way to balance Big strong greatsword vs quick little knife is to use the environment. And to illustrate is a film called the lion in Winter. In one scene the queen is trying to escape with the help of a guard and they encounter another guardsmen on a tower staircase. One draws a knife, the other draws a sword and they have a melee. The man with the knife wins, because he's actually able to wield his weapon properly vs the swordsman.
Damage in RPGs (DnD) is semi abstract concept.
It’s a rough representation that roles in many factors including, reach, edge alignment, armour penetration and leverage of a weapon into a simple formula to order weapons in a “general” hierarchy of effectiveness in a broad range of circumstances.
In DnD specifically hit point represent (as stated in the DMG) a combination of biological resilience, mental fortitude, endurance, luck and will to fight.
That’s y in old systems of DnD characters only became “bloodied” after 50% hp loss. Not all hp loss is physical “trauma”
So back to weapons.
There are certainly circumstance where daggers are more effective then spears (close range) but the diffrence in damage 1d4 (dagger) vs 1d8 (spear) factors in that a spear has “overall” in a combat situations a higher chance of being more effective, doing damage or impending an opponent during a fighter.
To stay on the topic of DnD the definition of a “hit” in the game rules is not just touching your opponent.
It does not share the idiomatic definition in the English language.
It is specifically, a contact that generates enough force or is landed with enough accuracy to cause hp loss.
A miss could be a “touch” that does not cause hp loss.
Eg you roll under a creatures AC and while you physically can make contact with them and your weapon, their armour defeats the blow.
This is a perfectly acceptable way for a DM to thematically describe a “miss”
The system is not perfect but I think you are taking “damage” a little too literally when damage in games can represent a little more then just physical trauma from wounds.
it’s a semi abstract system that is designed to allow for the flow of the game and tries to tier weapon by their overall effectiveness in combat so that players don’t get bogged down in endless rules and dice rolls.
It's also important to understand that 5e STR and DEX are *supposed* to be mechanically balanced against each other. DEX increases your AC in addition to attack and damage with finesse weapons, as well as DEX saving throws. STR is best utilized by the most damaging weapons, which also tends to pair with characters who can wear the heaviest armor to increase their AC higher than with DEX.
Sadly, it's not all that balanced, but the systems and tools *are* there.
Also, the abstract nature of HP/damage allows groups with different preferences to use the same system.
One group might prefer a more 'heroic' style with plenty of blood and gore, where each hit is described as drawing blood, and heroes come out of battles covered in bleeding cuts, with arrows sticking out of their muscular bodies, with broken bones, missing body parts (with healing magic described as fixing bones, restoring missing organs and limbs etc.)
Another group could have the exact same combat encounter, using the same system, but describe it entirely different - with most hits not drawing blood, but simply exhausting the characters, and only e.g. critical hits and finishing blows are described as actually causing physical damage to the target. In this case, healing magic would be described as primarily restoring stamina and energy depleted by the fight.
100% this. I said something similar above. Another point with D&D specifically is that all normal humans only have 1D6 hp and even common warriors only have 1D8. So any weapon is represented as deadly to normal humans with no skill/experience.
So... you missed what Shad was saying.
Yes, a hit may still be a 'miss' (though D&D has no way of defining when a miss is with or without contact, that is up to the DM).
Yes, a damaging hit may be minor (low damage).
However, what Shad -- IS -- saying is that weapons should have very similar damage potentials.
---
D&D : dagger? Oh, that barely hurts. Greatsword? That might not hurt much, or might muss you up.
Reality : Dagger? Oh, that could kill you. Greatsword? That can also kill you.
So, picking directly on D&D... they have nerfed the dagger from a viable weapon to an ignore-able weapon. Only monks and specialized builds care about daggers... and even then, a specialized build for any other weapon is better.
---
Instead, making all weapons the same damage (say, 1d8) and instead making larger weapons gain +1 to hit for each size category larger than 'dagger' would keep it simpl(er than the current) without fully converting. Yes, there would need to be some balancing adjustments that would be better suited to instead making 6e.
But no, 'more damage because more effective' doesn't make sense. A dagger can kill just as easily as a sword, or bow, or crossbow, or rifle... but it just becomes easier to do it from farther away.
@@Esperologist That is not realistic though. *D&D : dagger? Oh, that barely hurts. Greatsword? That might not hurt much, or might muss you up.
Reality : Dagger? Oh, that could kill you. Greatsword? That can also kill you.*
D&D has the right of it. In reality you can take many hits from a dagger without dying, many people survive stab wounds or even multiple stab wounds. A Greatsword will cleave you in half more often than not.
The different hit dice are to show how likely it is that a random hit from that weapon will kill you. A greatsword will kill you far more often than a dagger, especially in a combat where you are actively trying to survive.
*A dagger can kill just as easily as a sword, or bow, or crossbow, or rifle... but it just becomes easier to do it from farther away.*
Again not really true, A dagger has to hit a specific point to kill, A sword has to hit a less specific point, same with an arrow or rifle bullet. Your chance of surviving is highest vs a dagger and least vs a rifle.
A thing that came to mind from all the "trimming" you've done on the tree: Goblin Slayer also addressed how longer weapons could be a disadvantage in tight spaces or crammy environments. If we're in a crawl-tight tunnel with a zweihänder or something, it can be used just fine as a thrusting weapon until someone starts coming up from the rear: On what axis will you be able to rotate your weapon then? And moreso without disrupting your party during combat?
That's where the dagger comes in
On a serious note: Agreed!
But also: Just invest in metal gauntlets, then either do half-swording or switch the point of gripping even further and pummel the enemy with the sword's pommel to "end them rightly" in melee range.
Still not ideal perhaps, but there's no need to swing the full-length sword around in front of you in order to make use of it.
(Edit: ofc if you're in a crawl-tight tunnel, any attackers coming from behind might be able to screw you up even independently from your weapon because you'll have a hard time turning around even your own body itself.)
If you are in a crawl tight space and someone comes from behin, a dagger won't save you either. If I can turn, but the Zweihänder can't, the reach of the Zweihänders Pommel is STILL more usefull than a dagger.
Like, what are you gonna do if friend Foe has a zweihänder, huh? he's probably not coming after you unarmed? What's a dagger going to then? or if he has a spear, a longswords, an arming sword, literally any stabby thing longer than a dagger, make the dagger ineffective in that scenario.
Such great content, as always! That's why I watch all your videos: everything you say, you put some thoughts behind it and you test and demonstrate every aspect of your points. I have been working on an RPG system that takes into account the real pros and cons of weapons and that video really confirmed what what I have been doing. Thank you!
i think part of the damage issue is that things like daggers' damage is meant to average out over a full round, assuming they'd be landing more actual hits than reality, but also doing less damage than in reality. it's definitely a gameplay concession, but if you look at the fights on a macro scale, damage from a dagger or damage from a 2h sword tends to balance out. all else being equal.
In the anime ,” That Time I got Reincarnated as a Slime” the Oni, Shion is terrible as cook because she tries chopping vegetables with a great sword.
As a gun nerd this stuff also upsets me. Ballistics is a complicated science that no one really completely understands. You can't just say that this one does more damage than this one and leave it at that because bullets kinda just do whatever they want and it depends on a lot of factors. Also there's no guarantee that a person will die no matter what weapon you use. People have survived absolutely ridiculous injuries.
Yeah but with guns no one would argue that a .22lr is as strong as a 9mm round. We would both agree they could kill you but one would obviously do more damage to the target than the other.
@@angrygnome4304 I think he's referring to more nuanced examples, rather than such drastic measures.
Surely shotguns do as much damage at 60 feet as a bb gun at point blank. Videogames wouldn't lie to me right? 🙃
gun lethality is all over the place
As a fellow gun nerd and since you brought up lethality I'm just going to say 9mm vs. 45 ACP and see myself out.
This was probably one of the best intros I’ve seen to a video. Funny and perfectly summarized the video’s main point.
Also the ad section was also very good. You should do more videos cooking with swords.
I've been slowly over the years trying to develop my own fantasy ttrpg and your videos have actually been a great help! A lot of what you talk about gives me solid information and good jumping off points for further research. It always bothered me that weapons had variable damage in D&D, Pathfinder, and other similar games while you add a flat damage bonus from your ability modifier. This bothers me because you, as the combatant, are the variable while the dagger you hold will not change no matter who's hand it is in. In the system I am developing weapons have fixed damage modifiers and the die roll comes from your ability scores. For instance if your strength score is 1d10 and your weapon's damage modifier is 5, your damage roll would be 1d10+5. Anyway tangent aside, I love your content and keep up the great work!
It is amazingly difficult to create a system that recognizes sharpness damage blunt damage and burning damage as all being different.
I do believe a mod for a game called Rimworld implement those type of damage called Combat Extended
And so, for example a machete deals X amount of damage and have a sharp penetration of 5, but the armor it's htting has a sharp armor of 10, the damage it's dealt will be converted to blunt damage
I think Dark Souls handles that balance fairly well.
Each weapon has a spreadsheet of damage/status types it could potentially have, and then only modifies the particular damage/status the weapon is suppose to have.
Like if you have a Mace that deals 250 bludgeoning (striking) damage, but you want to infuse the weapon with fire damage. The infusion changes the damage into 125 bludgeoning and 125 fire damage before defense/resistance stats are calculated on hit.
Mount & Blade?
idk, a lot of games manage to do that. Mount & Blade has no class of burn damage, but it separates out piercing damage, cutting damage and blunt damage.
Surprisingly similar to how Morrowind's combat was supposed to work. Morrowind just threw a lot of weight into player stats and made the damage TYPE pretty irrelevant.
*miss* *miss* *miss* *miss* *dies to mudcrab*
Damage is usually tries to represent the combination of the user's skill plus the weapon's characteristics, the daggers d4 is just a piece of the equation. For example the sneak attacks from rogues, if they can get the target event a little distracted, the daggers do a ton more damage which is meant to reflect the skill to hit the vital spots, when otherwise they you do small cuts or superficial nicks.
But the great thing about these kinds of discussions are changes is paradigm like what you said about two handing a sword making it faster instead of stronger, that is very interesting and new.
I don't watch most sponsorships, but dang, you have the best segments for hello fresh; they really ought to bump up whatever they're paying you
Just to nitpick a point here:
Daggers in the souls games don’t necessarily do less damage when used as a critical weapon. Meaning that after a parry or after a guard is broken. A dagger would be far more effective damage wise than say the great sword. The problem is that most daggers are dex weapons so they scale off of dex rather than strength.
And people rather die than to use dex.
Faith ftw.
But if the enemy's guard is broken and you stab him, a dagger SHOULDN'T do more damage than, let's say a bastard sword. Where the dagger should shine is if it's easier to stab through the openings in the armor, while engaged in active combat (opposed to kneeling on the ground, recovering balance/breath/stamina)
The reason I have come to accept is glancing blows. The tip of a sword has more energy. If the tip of the sword hits armor its transferring more energy into the target than a dagger. The weapon doesn't have to perform a cut or peirce the actual person to stop them. Look at m1 medieval combat literally dudes never getting cut getting reduce to unconsciousness through armor. Hit points aren't blood and fatal damage but damage it take to reduce you to unconsciousness. Death savings throws are whether or not you can recover from concussion or internal wounds or if the wounds are deep enough to make you bleed out. This is how I rationalize it.
Out of all the in-video ads yours are my favorite.
Your vids are always a big help for the game ive been working on
I use these as the weapon stats
Damage types:
Piercing
Slashing
Cleaving
Bludgeoning
Speed-increases chance to hit
Weight-Damage threshold the weapon can block
Reach-increases chance to avoid attacks
Potential-enchanting
Corrosion-Weapon Durability
For DnD5E I think the damage stats are partly to represent reach and ability to hit targets because the to-hit system does not change with the type of weapon. Then again abilities and magic completely overshadow whatever weapon you choose to use anyways.
In a skill-based d20 homebrew, the margin of a hit added to the damage. I also had melee defense based on the target's skill, so hitting a skilled opponent was more difficult. One thing I could never get to my satisfaction was reach vs speed.
Shad agressively testing the weapons on the meat at the end was hilarious. It cranked me up and made my day.
I love it when watching your videos makes me scurry to write notes.
I feel like a bec de corbin could be considered heavy piercing due to its ability to pierce harder things like armor.
I think hit point are more than just health they are ur stamina and ur will to keep fighting and the difference in damage between a dagger and a great sword is that a great sword is harder to fight because of the reach and mass of the weapon not just the damage.
I always understood Hit points as the measure of a person's will to fight, a combination of superficial damage they can take, and their strength of will to keep fighting despite the pain.
@@christophershrimplin1849 I agree but also think stamina is included
Yeah that's how I understood it. It's hit points not damage or health, though we often shorten it it that.
The idea is that your armour class is you chance of a damaging hit getting though. But that includes all kinds of damage, the bludgeoning force of the blow, the damage to your armour or shield, the psychological damage and the resultant cost all that has to your ability to fight.
In that respect a dagger is less likely to have a significant lasting effect on a target. Not just because it's hard to cleave off a leg with one but also because its hard to place a good disabling cut with a knife without skill and finesse.
But this is compensated for massively by sneak attack or precision attack damage types where a precise attacks can do massive damage by avoiding the mitigation factors that protect the target and do the max damage a bladed weapon can do as shad demonstrates.
I also disagree with the idea that a spear does the same damage as a dagger. You can put a LOT more mass behind the point of a spear than a dagger or even a sword just because of how you hold it.
It won't necessarily penetrate more but it'll give the opponent something to think about, maybe even cause armour damage or knock them on their arse.
@@milamber319 ye I think the main reason some weapons deal more damage than others is because something like a spear is harder to fight against because of the reach and mass
@@christophershrimplin1849 that is how they’re explicitly described in the d&d 5e hand book. It isn’t a perfect system, but it generally works very well for most people.
0:57 I just love the outline you're providing! 😆
I've spent some time thinking about this subject in the past and this is how my brain reconciles. Weapons with longer blades hit for more damage because, with more blade, a larger cut is able to be made with one hit. Not always fighting people in D&D, have to assume big enemy. My long sword can slice more of that dragon in one swing than my dagger can. Feel me?
Same but also there is difference between cutting torso with dagger than knife
Fallout fans: You must be new here
I'm not so sure about that "winged spear" thing. to all my knowledge, those wings were primarily made for Boar hunting spears. Those "wings" were made to keep the boar from pushing up the spear and killing the hunter before they died... but i could be wrong.
That's because boars, bears etc. are known to keep charging (partly because of their great mass and momentum) even when pierced with a spear, whereas humans usually fought in formations, trying not to get stabbed, so it would be uncommon to have a human keep charging at you after being pierced by a spear. Thus with military spears, it was usually quite possible to do short 'shallow' stabs, and pull the spear out afterwards. Additionally, armor made it far less likely to accidentally stab too deep. Getting the spear stuck deep into the target, and impossible to pull out, would still be undesirable, it just didn't happen often enough to make wings on military spears common. Although I wonder how spears designed against horses differed in this matter, since a cavalry charge is more akin to a boar or bear charging. I think in this case, the preferred method was often to have a longer spear (e.g. a pike) and have its other end pushed into the ground. As such, it would pierce deep into the horse, and still keep the horse away from the pikeman.
Having wings on a pike would probably be undesirable because the extra weight on the tip would make the weapon both even more unwieldy, as well as more likely to break during impact.
Some regions may have primarily used them for that. Or maybe that was the initial use and it made it's way into battle, because of the benefits.
So yeah, Shad was a bit mistaken by claiming that was the reason for them... should have added the modifier of it being the reason they were used in battles.
@@Tennouseijin exactly... you just went into a lot more detail than i did :) but same point.
I mean, those uses are not mutually exclusive
@@lucasfranke5161 i was mostly referring to the origin of the "wings"
I played an old mmo once with an interesting system where there was HP and BP. Essentially you're health and blood points, so when you swinged with lets say a blunt mace you would deal damage to hp but not blood points. It was the reverse with a dagger or other piercing weapons so it would deal way more BP than HP. IT was fun because it you chose a weapon on the extreme you generally picked up the weapon skill on the other extreme too since I mean... stabbing a skeleton wont do much.
What game was this?
To me it comes down to how much is gained by adding realism. In this case? The added complexity adds very little, especially when considering that damage is about mechanical balance as much as anything else. Not to mention, damage is basically how good a hit actually is. I like 2e PF's use of traits for this too. A pick on a crit will use a larger damage die than normal, or how some weapons instead add even more dice on a crit.
6:28 Interesting that Shad cuts food with his left hand but wields weapons with his right.
I do almost everything right-handed, except aiming firearms, as I am left-eye dominant. Heck, when I first started learning to fire a rifle, I could not close only my left eye and keep the right open, but the reverse was easy for me.
I have since taught my eyes to 'wink' either side, and I can fight with swords and such either left- or right-handedly.
The stab wound includes both the incision and trauma. One of the things that increases trauma is not just depth of penetration, but the amount of force involved. Generally speaking, the greater the force, the greater the size of the cavity created by the penetration.
A spear is going to cause more trauma than a dagger for the same length of penetration. If one were to look at a Warhammer, the pick side would cause catastrophic damage because it's not only going to enter with a lot of force, but there's going to be blunt force trauma around it.
To be honest, I have a lot more experience with firearms. The diameter of around fired by a rifle maybe the same size as that of a pistol or comparable, but it's going to cause much more damage. Not that you'd like to be hit by either, but the damage inflicted by an AK-47 with its 7.62mm x 39 round would be far less than that caused by a Tokarev 7.62x25 round.
You have those calibers mixed up at the bottom AK47 is 7.62x39 and the tokarev is 7.62x25
@@johnmackey2703 I probably shouldn't post before having my coffee
While I do agree in most cases I don't think it will make a huge difference much of the time - the flesh cuts easily and the force of a dagger vs a spear in a stab isn't going to be hugely different most of the time, humans just don't have the ability to put as great a variation of force on the stab the way bullets can, not saying there isn't such an effect, because there is, but the spear will be nastier than a dagger largely when the tip has a different geometry - which it usually will - daggers tend to be much thinner to be good at slashing and stabbing - where spears and rapiers tend to be big thick spikes to put big wide holes in the target...
The difference between a rifle and a pistol, even when they both have similar size and weight bullet, is velocity. A rifle will always have more velocity due to the longer barrel. More velocity creates more damage, and more hydrostatic shock. For instance, compare the wound channels created by a .45 Colt, or a .45 ACP cartridge vs. that of a .45-70. The pistol cartridges create a bore sized hole through and through, with little temporary cavity, while the .45-70 leaves a temporary cavity you could put your fist into.
@@johnmullholand2044 You sure about that? The 45-70 Long Colt is a black powder round with a larger bullet than that found in the smokeless powder pistol round of the 45 ACP. I have no doubt that a model 1873 45 caliber revolver or a carbine firing the 45-70 round would leave a nasty hole in a person. However, the 45 ACP has 50% more pressure behind it and higher velocity. Of course, I wouldn't want to be shot with either. Frankly, shot with a BB and didn't like that.
I think the big things as to why that happens in games is 1: game balance and 2: realism is hard to implement and things being realistic doesn't always make for great games. I personally dislike games being overly realistic.
Great video shad :)
For these sort of things, I really like the approach that GURPS does. Depending on your strength stat, you get assigned a damage value for thrusting and swong attacks.
Weapons use these values in addition to bonuses from the weapon to calculate how much damage is done. Afterwards, depending on the weapon type, a certain type of damage is inflicted and can have bonuses or penalties.
For example, cutting damage does 50% more damage to unarmored targets.
That's a great system.
@@plaidpvcpipe3792 I particularly love how it uses basic attribute scores for skill checks + your level in that particular skill.
Yeah, gurps is a great system. Unfortunately because of its age it doesn't get the credit ot deserves. It actually has pretty good solutions to all of Shad's criticisms of rpgs and video games.
3:33 You're forgetting all the games where you simply don't get to use a spear at all...
What might be interesting is a system that differentiates between blunt damage and edge damage. Both have vastly different effects irl, though there is some overlap when it comes to their respective.
Games are granulating damage into different damage types as time goes on and more complex and involved combat mechanics become mainstream.
Soulsborne games is the earliest I've played where weaoons have slash, thrust, and strike attack AND defense for each weapon and armor piece, respectively.
Kingdom Come Deliverance also uses the same system. Different weapons and armor have different amounts of thrust, slash, and strike attack and defense, respectively.
I mean, almost all videogames do that already. The common way I remember games do it, is you have blunt damage, pierce damage and slash damage, plus fantasy types of damage.
Then you have armors which each give different types of defenses. So you have Plate armor which usually has high slash damage defence, but is weaker against piercing damage.
Some games manage different types of attack and depending on them have different damage. For example, a sword might be able to do slash and piercing, depending on the attack. Or you have change of stance, which do different types of attack, which do different type of damage.
@@DJWeapon8 You haven't played very many games if Dark Souls is your example.
Blunt force trauma causes abrasion, laceration, contusion, and fractures. Slashing weapons cause incisions.
Incisions tend to be deeper and actually cut the tissues apart. Lacerations are the closest thing to incisions, but in that case, the tissues are torn apart unevenly and are not that deep, but tend to be wider. However, the trauma force can go much deeper, affecting other tissues like bone.
So for example, an incision can reach a bone without damaging it, while a laceration might cause an open wound that doesn't reach the bone but has actually fractured it.
There have been systems that do that in the paper RPG world since at least 1980. Rolemaster RPG system was one I played. Your weapon had a chart and armor had a numerical type so you would roll on your weapon chart and look up your result on that weapon vs the type of armor. A slashing weapon like a scimitar would do garbage vs plate. You would hit a lot and do almost no real damage and have very low chance of getting a critical hit (Critical hits were where you really effected the opponent in the system. There were levels of charts for critical hits based on the weapon chart vs the armor and how high you rolled). Meanwhile if you happened to be wielding a warhammer you would deal more damage per hit and be much more likely to get those important critical hits which was what really took opponents out. Fighting a person wearing leather and you would both hit less as the person can move around a bit more without the plate armor on but when you hit the scimitar would be dealing better damage and getting those critical hits more often and on higher charts. The crits were no joke as those were what you really wanted to get. Rolling on high crit charts and getting high rolls could just simply state "Impale adversary in heart. Instant death. 25% chance your weapon is stuck in opponent for 2 rounds" on a high chart crit or "Blow to abdomen crushes a variety of organs. The poor fool expires after 6 rounds of inactivity." Lower crits would do something to weaken the one hit by making rolls at -10 or -20 or -30 (D100 system) or not being able to parry for x rounds and usually the effects were tied to what type of weapon you were using. Slashing would be more likely to give negative on future rolls than other types of weapons. Blunt weapons would be more likely to knock down or stun. Piercing would be more likely to force opponent to do something like parry but each type could do all of those things just some were more likely than others based on the type of damage the weapon was.
This however is not an endorsement of the system. It was a very tedious system with dozens upon dozens of charts with every weapon getting a chart and each type of damage getting multiple critical charts and charts for claw attacks and bite attacks and so on and so forth. Every player had their own 3 ring binder full of charts. It was also one of the deadliest systems I have ever played. You did your utmost best to avoid combat because once the dice started to be rolled anyone could die and even if no one died someone was still going to get some crit that would cripple them in some way. This was not D&D where a level 20 warrior could never die fighting a single goblin. A highly advanced character could die to that goblin. All it takes is a good enough roll (D100 but it was open ended so if you rolled a 96+ you rolled again and added it and if you rolled another 96+ you kept going) My brothers really powerful fighter died in the first round of combat against some peon orcs due to a lucky roll. The attack was rolled open ended twice and then a good roll on the third so he got hit with a high chart crit and the roll was 100 on the chart. He died instantly with an arrow through the eye.
In the game I'm creating, I am implementing something like this. Weapons are light slashing, heavy slashing, light piercing, heavy piercing, light bludgeoning, heavy bludgeoning (and bare hands separate for gaming purpose rather than realism, and fire). Thanks to your video I will remove the difference light/heavy for the piercing ones. n_n
How goes the game?
@@silversheep7369 It's a slow process, but it's moving forward. I asked friends to read my first draft to give me feedback, then I'll have to test it with a table of friends. n_n
@@KamiSeiTo Sweet. I wish you well in your endeavors. Are you including ranged weapons and tools as well?
@@silversheep7369 Thank you ! It's not really needed when we look at the damage itself. Two inches of sharp blade in your flesh, it doesn't really matter if it was thrown at you or planted at CQC range ; it doesn't matter that much if you receive a blunt trauma from a warhammer or a "tool" hammer. And I don't plan for a heavy simulationism game, it's more focused on what's interesting to tell and having fun and creative rules.
@@KamiSeiTo I was thinking moreso disabling tools like weighted nets or bolas. I *may* have a slight bias to advocating for staff slings, lol
A cut is generally going to have more stopping power than a thrust, despite thrust normally being more lethal. For example, a cut to the arm is much more likely to disable the limb than a thrust is simple because they sever more muscle fibers or tendons.
Before watching all this, the way I've sorted this sort of thing out in the game I'm developing is that weapons have damage ratings based on the type of strikes you use them with. For instance, most straight bladed weapons, from daggers, to swords, to spears, inflict nearly identical damage with a thrust strike. With weightier or stiffer weapons having greater armor penetration, while shorter weapons have slightly higher accuracy, but obviously lower reach to compensate, making them riskier to use hand to hand. Some really short weapons have what's called 'armor bypass' meaning if you can get close with them, you can target the gaps and not suffer as heavy accuracy penalties when thrusting where the target may be unarmored. Also, as a general rule, thrusting weapons tend to have slightly lower base damage, but higher critical damage potential.
Those are a few examples of the kind of thing I've already been implementing in my game.
My general system basically goes as such:
Number of dice is determined by the Strength of the wielder. This is roughly 1d6 per 10 STR, with some slight modifiers for the intermediate levels (so 1d6+1 at STR 12-14, 1d6+2 at STR 15, 2d6-1 at STR 16-18, 2d6 at STR 19-21, 2d6+1 at STR 22-24, etc.). The mode of attack for the weapon alters the damage further:
- A good swinging arc rather than a thrust gets +1 damage per die. Slashes with daggers still count as thrusts, not swings.
- Two-handed attacks add +1 damage per die.
- Hafted weapons (things like axes, flails, and maces weighted heavily towards the striking end) get another +1 damage per die.
These weapon categories and individual things within them will have other tradeoffs like reach vs. accuracy, or inability to parry for _even more_ damage, and so forth. But except as noted, all one-handed swords do the same cut and thrust damage, all two-handed axes do a pretty consistently higher amount of damage than one-handed knife thrusts, and so on and so forth.
Rolemaster tried this in a game first released in 1982 with charts for weapon and armour type. WHFRP 4th ed has weapon distances with success levels from advantage adding to damage.
Yeah, Rolemaster/HARP/Against The Darkmaster have nice combat systems which are more simulationist, focused on critical hits via Weapon type vs Armor type success tables. It's great and not as complex to use as some think. Unfortunately the majority of TTRPG players are stuck in the D&D abstraction pit, or one of it's many derivatives.
Finally, I have been waiting for this for the entire time I have been watching the channel.
23:17 ah I see shad has equipped the "blade dance" ash of war on that sword. Nice choice!
I like one of the mechanics in Battletech: Stability Damage - Where attacks that may not do much damage debuff you by making you unstable, leaving you open to a follow up.
It's a better system in the Tabletop version of that game. The Battletech PC game takes stability too far and makes it far stronger than it should be.
Check out the old system Rolemaster, every weapon had it's own attack table vs different types of armor and the kills were more likely to come from the criticals than the hit point depletion.
I run and play in Rolemaster and I can confirm the hit points versus critical effect statement.
A typical adventurer can take down most natural critters and levy troops with hit points, but I have never seen a legendary creature (dragon, greater demons, elementals, etc.) taken down on hit points.
Usually it is a combination of bleeding, broken bones, stun/impairment from pain, and/or severed limbs-n-bits that brings down the big critters.
One time, the party I was running for took down a giant by stunning it so much it passed out, then they cut the jugular and stood uphill of the blood flow.
Good points Shad. Still couldn't help but chuckle every time I heard thrust, pull out, and penetration. Had to pause to refocus.
So a system I’m playing with some friends is Dungeon World. Weapons don’t have a set amount of damage but your class does. A bard and a fighter can be using the same weapon but the fighter will deal more damage than the bard or two fighters can be going at it, one with a sword and one a dagger and they both deal the same damage.
I've been designing my own system, and been pondering this for a while. Happy to have confirmation. My plan is to make the particular weapon used have little impact on damage output, but determine effective range. I hope to test my combat system soon... expecting to find many flaws (mostly cumbersome mechanics), but I need to test them to see how bad they are to decide how to trim them.
Something to consider is time, if your realism is adding time to the game by extending the things you need to do and track in combat, then make sure it's also fun. If it's not then you might be adding things for the sake of realism that kill the game. The reason D&D uses a 5ft grid for instance is because tracking distance of less than that becomes tedious and time consuming. While I do not agree 100% with how far they dumbed down the latest version of D&D, some of their earlier versions tracked a lot more and were not always as fun to play. Striking that balance between realism, fun and quick easy to play, rules, is the key.
@@Ishlacorrin Spot on. Fun, balance, pacing, and simplicity are all bigger issues for games than strict realism.
@@barongerhardt I did foam weapon larping, padded weapons & padded shields ..
Newbi get a playful love tap kick to the bottom of their shield which bounces into their chin or lower lip.
Regulars sometimes get a bit carried away kick the bottom of the shield hard enough to split the lower lip.
During full on shield walls the only way to get an opening is to strait kick the other guy's shield hard enough to knock him down backwards, or raise smack the shield into his face to short sword stab him in the gut.
The women, " ladies in waiting," will take a spear, bow, or crossbow standing/firing from under the shield wall or at the sides of the shield wall once the men get the other men to raise their shield arm leaving their sides open. This is not sportsmanship, but murder training in the field.
Mock larp fights battles last less than a full minute resulting in having your joints and calves slapped hard enough for your foot or hand to go numb for a few minutes.
Rogue class ability of Sneak Attack advantage is just Flanking and flat-foot rules for +2 atk & +d6 dmg on opponent.
@@krispalermo8133 I have never LARP'd. It looks like a lot of fun, with a good group. I have played paintball. Not the most realistic, but if you are hit anywhere, leg, hand, even just the gun, you are out. Simple rule to understand, keeps the game moving. Most skirmishes don't last that long. So those that were knocked out are back in action in a few minutes later. Hits all my above points and makes for a fun outing for most. Getting hit can sting a bit, and some cannot get past that.
@@barongerhardt paint blast is in its own , live action role playing.
Half the larps in my area never bother taking up D&D character names, They regarded padded sword/club & shield to be " play " boxing. Or .. Riot Control Training.
Other than counting hit, but pain thresh holds of endurance fights can go on for minutes. Lasting till someone .. Has .. to call for Water cause from the heavy breathing their throat is to dry to draw air. Anyone who played some serous football as teenagers know how the body can be pushed to such a point. Basket ball can get the same way. But foot ball is just an excuse for group wrestling.
Years ago I was teaching my 13 year old cousins the basics of fighting/combat and nerve delay responses. Such as the body can go into auto pilot till the mind catches up to the body. Such as pro boxing back in the 1970's & 80's would win a match then pass out after the match was finish from exhaust. So my teenage little bastards froze paint balls and timed the distant shots till the nerves kicked in. Well you can Only run for so long on cramped leg muscles till they refuse to move and fall down. So they gave me a few shots at range and laugh, when I charge to slap them around they did a full unload on me.
Half the group wanted to ran in fear, and my cousin stood relaxed and told them to wait for it. I charged and then collapsed a yard from their spot. The smug little zhit calmly stated, " It is all about understanding nerve delay. "
In regards to less than lethal shots, I grew up around skunks and had some mean siblings so parts of my brain will shut down to smell, pain, pepper spray. Also .. frozen .. paint balls hit harder than rubber bullets. So rapid punching in boxing lights up the nerve cluster light a Christmas tree and short out your surge protectors of your nervous system resulting in going unconscious knock out, or just falling down being unable to move from muscle cramping, other wise getting taser with out electricity.
Cardboard duct tape body armor is enough to deal with even frozen paint balls and rubber bullets. Each year twenty some years ago my local junior community college had a police training academy had the cadets go up against the school's larp group in riot gear. And the cadets lose strait out in club & shield riot control action. Main reason you have young men with under a year worth of training in club & shield, and half of them never played full contact football as teenagers or have any pain thresh hold endurance. The school larpers been using club endurance fighting with trash can lids for close to ten or more years. The girls played soccer, basketball, or tennis/ racket ball, they were so fast you can't catch them. So dude you just got beat up by a .. girl.
My city .. never .. had a uncontrol event or riot in my life time or my parents. So my departments and near by counties do not spend much time each year training for riot control actions, so they have weak skills in club & shields use. Still doesn't stop some young arrogant twenty something year old coming down to the park and getting slapped and pushed around by the .. girls .. of the group.
For basic club training and control over the hit impact power, just buy a few cheap plastic baseball bats from a dollar store and light saber fight with them.
I've always thought of HP as more representative of your stamina and luck than your physical endurance - so it inevitably drains the longer you fight, as your character gets more exhausted, their technique gets sloppy, and at some point a goblin is just going to get lucky and stab you in the face. Visualizing melee combat as a series of blows that all connect and draw blood has always seemed silly to me.
Irl HP is how many battleship cannon hits you can take
Very educational thank you
The Problem with Games is, that for the most cases gamebalance outweights realism. You can only simulate realism to a degree. If you would give a slashing weapon a bonus to hit in a system, where you can stack many damage increases on top of another, nobody would use a thrusting weapon. And even if it's only a small difference.
Have you tried "battle brothers"? I think you'll like it realism wise.
In old school D&D, longswords and great swords did additional damage against giants. The reasoning was not provided cuz Gary, but I reason that if there is more of you to cut / stab, then I can do more damage with a weapon with a longer cutting edge or a greater piercing capacity.
You can also realistically attack something like a giant "easier" with a larger weapon, as you don't have to get as close to them and avoid being stamped on / picked up. Obviously, trying to write a combat system based on reality would result in most characters dying very quickly...
It should be more of a matter of how much is being cut in relation to the size of what you are cutting. Our bodies have a very small area that guts hurt regardless of the size of the weapon because of how much of our body is actually being hit. Like compare us to a squirrel, if a squirrel were to be as resilient as we are (not scaled down), we would not be able to hurt them much. But that would be on initial contact. Once you are able to start going through, then it becomes problem, for them.
Like, if I slice your arm, I could easily get a 4 inch wound across your arm, but try the same thing on this super resilient for a squirrel, and I might only be able to get 3/4 in. But if I stabbed into you and gave a 2 in wound, you would most likely be good to fight. A 2 in wound into a squirrel could very well be enough to cut it in twain. So, that would be much more effective.
Going back to the giant, that same rule would and should apply. More of the blade can make contact, allowing for bigger wounds, and the weapons can cut even deeper into them, allowing for more contact. Like if you stabbed 1 foot of sword into a person, other than it makes the cut wider, it is wasting 6 in of blade that is doing nothing, but that giant is much thicker, so 1 foot going in is doing a lot more than just making the hole wider, it is deeper too.
You should make a game. I would play it. Everything you said makes perfect sense and I can even envision how to simple redo the dice roles to work in the systems you are talking about.
The talk about Weapon Variance reminds me a lot of Pathfinder 1e.
In various TTRPG spaces and Optimization Groups, one thing about weapon variance is that the many flat-bonuses you get to damage will basically completely overshadow the damage you're doing with the weapon at high levels, like...
Like a 10th level fighter using a Knife VS using a Longsword/Arming Sword you get numbers like...
1d4+9 (20 Strength + Weapon Training + a +2 weapon)
VS
1d8 + 9 (Same things, 20 strength, weapon training, and a +2 weapon)
Meaning that really over time, the weapon you use means a lot less than your techniques with it.
Granted. 2-handed weapons also have the advantage of Leverage, which is reflected in your having a 1.5x multiplier on your Strength Modifier when wielding them 2 handed which throws this maths back towards "Greatswords always cut better than daggers", but then daggers have the advantage of being Light and Easily Concealed so that the fighter or the rogue that's using knives is gonna be pretty well off.
Also, some have even said for Pf that daggers are a bit BETTER than the comparable Short Sword since the damage increase on a shortsword is only like 1 on average, and daggers get to deal multiple damage types, be concealed, and have the thrown property for if you really need it.
YES ABSOLUTELY. I’d love to see a game where the character uses their primary weapon to engage their opponent (like a spear or sword), then finish their opponent off with a grapple/dagger combo. There are so many designs where they have a dagger in their belt, but it serves no purpose other than decoration.
Would make sense especially with armored combatants. Knock them off balance, grapple them to pin them in a vulnerable position, then stab into an unarmored nook. Would make for a good “finisher” move as opposed to somehow slashing or stabbing directly into plate armor.
While significantly outside of the realm of realism, Monster Hunter 4 made your hunter’s knife feel powerful and useful in combat through the mounting mechanic. You would knock the monster down, climb onto their back, and stab at them with your knife while desperately holding on while the monster tries to buck you off.
Check out Kingdom Come: Deliverance, if you haven't already. Actual combat is done with swords/axes/maces, but if you have a knife and become good at sneaking, you can one-hit kill anybody you get the drop on.
Granted, gameplay would be kinda fiddly to work with if you have to deal with the grapple-knife animation. Though weirdly one thought instantly came to mind. Shadow of Mordor. You can knock enemies down and use the knife to finish them off.
The two Middle Earth games (Shadow of Mordor/Shadow of War) make the dagger very useful like that. Sneak attaks to open fights, of course, but they're also used to finish knocked-down orcs, or captains fleeing after a fear kicks in.
I think there is a bigger issue that caused this: In real life people don't have HP!
I think Kenshi handles combat pretty realisticaly, though it is very simlified.
We kind of do though. We just don't know how many we have! That said, our stamina is also directly proportional to how many HP we have left.
Technically every known living being on earth has 1 hp,because hp in real life is a military term used to describe how much attacks à warship can take from the canon of another before sinking
Shad, good work and don't stop. My thoughts.
These rules are vastly simplified so the DM and players can play and get to their story. Yes, homebrew rules would be awesome to give advanced players more immersion, but I also like base 5e rules to ease new players into the game, and to let story oriented players enjoy it as well.
What about the edge aligment? You can make a succefull cut and hit the oponent, but your edge aligment can be way off and you can hit the oponent with the flat (1 damage) or hit with perfect aligment (max damage) or anywhere between.
Also hitting the head it's not the same damage as hitting the arm. You suggesting that every hit is somewhare in the center of the mass ot the head, but we can think about the damage roll from 1-10 as a roll where and how your hit goes. Is it in the head? Or the body? Or in the arm? How strong it is? How is the edge aligment? Are you hitting with the part of the blade that is very blunt because of the hit in the shield a few seconds ago? The damage is just a approximation of all this possabilities. We can have 10 rolls for each of thouse things... but it won't be fun.