Larger weapons should do more damage

if it's equivalent force then the damage is the same.

...

>running: any fantasy game
>there's always a guy who wants to have "a seven foot long greatsword"
>tell him he can't effectively use it in five-foot-wide, seven-foot high corridors except to thrust at a penalty to hit since his attacks are now predictable
>somehow I'M the asshole

>insects status : small
>human status : big
>human vs insects status : humans win
seems like having a big stuff is effective

Well, there's a number of reasons why you're a bit wrong.

Half-swording is perfectly viable, and there's a number of other ways to deal with using long weapons in small spaces. You've picked up on one yourself (thrusting is unimpeded), and there's also some simple geometry that allows a 7x1 object to fit comfortably in a 7x5x∞ corridor. Things like slashing from a lower stance to drop the pivoting point allows for a fair amount of freedom that takes advantage of just basic angles.

But, more importantly, you're making the mistake that the attacks are predictable. For that, you should give the same penalty to anyone who uses a spear or other thrusting weapon. I mean, we're ignoring that the defender is also limited because they have less mobility in a narrow corridor, or that a seven-foot sword shares more in common with polearms than it does with 3-foot swords.

Yes, large swords are field weapons and aren't ideal in narrow situations. But, they're versatile enough that it's a bit heavy-handed to apply penalties to them like you wanted to, especially in a fantasy game, unless you are also going to do things like apply penalties to short weapons in open spaces.

If equal in force it's the surface area that matters for damage and the material.

>trying to make something realistic and making it unrealistic in the process
This is why I don't trust any "realistic" system or GMs claiming realism.

Sounds like everyone involved has no idea what they are talking about. I encourage the GM to reach out the player about half-swording and such.

>larger weapons should do more damage to smaller people

>not using five swords for 5x the strength bonus

As that GM I encourage you to such a fat dick, I'll run the game how I want.

Did you really just get that butthurt at being called out for not knowing what you're talking about?

I put a lot of work into my game so I'll run it how I choose to, not even really mad just telling you to suck a fat dick.

There are many times more insects than humans and they eat our food, live in our homes, and are the creatures that have the highest number of human kills (mosquitoes). In what way are humans winning?

That's nice, but then don't come here to whine that you got called an asshole over making up your own rules of why you can't use a big sword on a corridor.

I'll gladly make up my own rules in the make-believe world I create with my friends, where you can still use a big sword in a corridor, but not without penalties.

Only if you're strong enough to wield the larger weapon without being impaired. Also, a Berserk-size sword is not more capable of chopping off an arm than a zweihander is (yes I know, they were barely used, but just as an example), since any extra weight over the necessary is just pointless baggage. So it depends on the wielder's strength and the opponent it's used again.

At the expense of your friend's entertainment?

Or you could trying being a GOOD GM--just to mix things up a bit~

Wow. Just wow. If you aren't a child, then you have no excuse to act like such a blubbering, infantile Bawwfest.
Grow tf up, m8.

I'm the asshole. That guy isn't me user, haha.

We're not talking about historical longswords, "the king of weapons" with 4.5 to 5-ft blades or whatever. We're talking about Weeamagic 7ft long 8" across retardo ultraswords.

Yes weapons like those did exist on open battlefields in a highly specialized role as part of mixed weaponry tactics. They were used to batter down/deflect pikes and attack heavily armored troops. Fair enough. Try to tell me that's the weapon you'd take to a fight inside of a dark, low-ceilinged dungeon with narrow corridors.

>They were used to batter down/deflect pikes and attack heavily armored troops
No.

Hell, I'll admit straight up I fucking hate greatswords. You're gonna scale a fucking wall with this awkward blade that's taller than you are across your back and 'quickdraw' it somehow when you get to the top? Fuck you.

Don't out me please, this is the kind of topic that people will argue about for hours if you just keep disagreeing with them.

so larger weapons should impart a penalty that is diminished by strength. when the penalty is 0 the n the user can use the weapon at full damage?

Yes
But they should require a higher strength score to use effectively

>Try to tell me that's the weapon you'd take to a fight inside of a dark, low-ceilinged dungeon with narrow corridors.

Yes? What are you, level 1?

>Doesn't know about Zweihänders use in warfare
>Still responds

If you're gonna run your game like that then it's fine, but you should make such rules about situational pretty clear to your players if they're house rules.

Only if your character can actually handle the weapon. And, yes, your character size should factor into it, not just your stats.

>mfw Rank 1 would mean you were the absolutely strongest Claymore in the Organization at the time

For example, yeah. Also possibly a limit to how much damage it can deal to enemies of certain sizes. For example, a greatsword and a longsword would do the same amount of damage to a lightly armoured halfling, because their sizes would both be sufficient to chop the halfling up like firewood. I mean, if you want to bother with rules like that, which I can understand if you don't.

I do. Hell I'll explicitly warn my players anytime they're about to walk into a situation where they'd be at a disadvantage with their loadout, since that's something their characters would pay attention to.

Quantify "damage" for me. Because I'm fairly certain if I stabbed you with a knife, there's a decent chance I could kill you.

For every human killed by a mosquito-borne disease, hundreds and thousands are swatted, gassed, poisoned, et cetera. Millions upon millions of mosquitoes will never reproduce because their mates have been infected with Wolbachia by humans.

Would you say the same to a dragon?

I would say most weapon "damage" would be superficial to a creature of that magnitude, unless you hit a vital organ. At that point, weapon size doesn't matter much.

>five swords
HA, you are like baby

This feels like bait, but I'll bite anyway.

Weapons that are sized appropriately for the wielder will do more damage than ones that are either too large or too small. There's a sort of a sweet spot that's determined less by physical strength and more by the anatomical frame of the person wielding them. No matter how strong you are, you're still going to be more effective with a weapon of standard and reasonable size, and the strength will help you move it faster and with greater endurance - both of which matter more than striking power, since in general, any weapon worth using is going to be deadly enough in the hands of someone with average or somewhat below average strength.
If your weapon is too big, it's not only going to slow down your attacks and make them both more predictable to dodge and slower to recover from, but it'll also lessen the amount of actual kinetic force that you can hit with even if you do land a hit.
tl;dr Go with real historical weapon designs if you want to be a good fighter, because they're optimized for actual fighting and will be much more effective.

In game terms, if you have to use an oversized weapon, it should confer both an attack penalty (due to moving slower) and a damage penalty (also due to moving slower), and if we want to be even harsher and more realistic, an AC penalty after each attack because you won't be able to parry. Even if these numbers are small and can be overcome with high strength, it's still a bad idea and your 18 STR fighter will still do better in combat with a real, sensible weapon that's meant for him.

If you have MAAAAGIC to offset these problems, that opens up the question as to why you wouldn't use the same magic to enhance yourself with a regular weapon instead and be even better. Same with feats and specialized training. There's no sensible reason to intentionally give yourself a disadvantage and then put resources into overcoming it, when you could use those resources to make yourself better without that disadvantage.

Actually wrong, a bigger thing will always do more damage by raw. It is fucking math. Go and check what is worse to get hit by a lead pebble at 1000km/h or get hit by a lead pipe at 1000km/h.
Usage and possibility of use of it is a whole other matter.

RAW isn't meant to handle edge cases.
We can all agree that a larger mass at the same velocity will result in more impact on target, but that ignores that it takes a lot more force to accelerate the larger mass, and the resultant damage is a function of mass times the square of the velocity. For a given amount of energy you will cause a lot more destruction with a smaller faster projectile - within the limits of physics, because there's other factors at play too.

This thread might feel like bait to you because you're wrong in most of your convictions.

>determined less by physical strength and more by the anatomical frame

Like this.

>No matter how strong you are, you're still going to be more effective with a weapon of standard and reasonable size

And this.

>greater endurance - which matter more than striking power,

Also this.

>any weapon worth using is going to be deadly enough in the hands of someone with average or somewhat below average strength.

Definitely this.

>Go with real historical weapon designs if you want to be a good fighter, because they're optimized for actual fighting and will be much more effective.

And this doesn't take into account extreme strength at all.

If you meet the strength threshold, yes. Otherwise you're liable to tip over when you swing it and look like a moron.

If the sword is 7ft, then its likely to be wide to support the length, as well as heavy. This would make it unwieldy for half sword techniques (though, a sufficiently strong person could still do it), and difficult to penetrate small gaps via thrusting due to said accuracy/precision penalty. Depending on the design of the sword, thrust attacks to penetrate armor may be difficult due to the width of the sword at the end if we're going with a retarded final fantasy design.

Point is, there'd still be some penalties in close quarters, perhaps not as much as the other guy thought though.

But what if my character is strong enough to swing an eight pound sword around like it's an aluminum bat (except balanced like a proper sword, ofc)? What would be the point in taking a normal sized weapon in that case?

>but that ignores that it takes a lot more force to accelerate the larger mass

Try this.

Try throwing a BB at something as hard as you can.
Then try throwing a baseball at it.

You're not wrong that it requires more force to accelerate a larger mass, but the physical machine that is the body has its own limitations.

You couldn't, for example, swing your arm fast enough, even without it being weighted down at all, for it to exceed the damage you could deal to something with a baseball, because the baseball is several hundreds of times heavier. You'd need to throw the BB at several times the speed of sound.

>bullets are smaller than arrows so arrows are better

Obviously you can't draw it as fast as a dagger or shorter sword, but with a proper baldric design it would still be possible to scale a wall with it.

Certainly not ideal, but possible, sure.

Call me wrong if you want, but you don't have anything to back your assertions up with. My "convictions" are based on practical testing done by reenactors, basic physics and kinesthetics, and an understanding that historical approaches to doing things were generally done because that worked.
What do you have besides misguided "rule of cool" - eg, not understanding what MAKES something cool, simply wanting to ape what you've seen in media without understanding that it's a deliberate exaggeration for dramatic effect, and once the context has changed then it's no longer the same thing?

You'd still be able to hit harder with a two-pound sword than an eight-pound one, because you'd be swinging that much faster. And you'd be able to hit more often. And you could do so for much longer before tiring. Sword fighting is very much about speed.

Valid point, and it doesn't really refute anything I've said. There's more going on than what's immediately evident.

Just make sure you don't underestimate a person carrying a giant sword.

Giant swords were actually historically made by blacksmiths to show off their skill. They were expensive and difficult to make, and not something a person would commit to lightly. If someone has one, and its not hanging on their wall but over their shoulder, you probably don't want to put all your faith into the idea that they won't be able to put up a fight in close quarters.

>Giant swords were actually historically made by blacksmiths to show off their skill
Yes, but bearing swords were never ever used as actual weapons. They're art pieces.

>No

Ok

I just want to see a real women built like cestree, nude

>based on practical testing done by reenactors

That's actually a point against you. A lot of that business falls into pseudoscientists just contradicting each other.

But, as far as basic physics, you might want to take a look at why sledge hammers are the size and weight they are. It's not because smaller, lighter hammers are not available, it's because a 20lb sledgehammer is going to do the job of fracturing concrete a lot faster with fewer swings, because the entire body is being used to accelerate a tool that is several times heavier than something like a sword at nearly the same speed. We're talking about needing to swing a 2lb sword at 10x the speed of that sledgehammer (very roughly) to get the same force.

When dealing with fantasy, we're talking about fights that include things like stone golems and elephant skeletons. Fights that are more like demolition work than fencing.

You're right. Appropriate sized weapons are important. But, physical strength and the size of your weapon are extremely important factors in regards to how much of an impact you're going to make in a battle, and if a person is extremely strong, it makes sense that they take advantage of that strength.

Look up "Christina Hendricks nudes"

Thank me later

>when the penalty is 0 the n the user can use the weapon at full damage?
Given how much of wielding a big weapon is about managing momentum, there probably ought to be more of a penalty to rate of use that is decreased with more strength. Someone super strong will be able to use a gigantic sword nearly as fast as someone weaker could use a rapier, and would be devastating for it as all that momentum would overwhelm most shields and parries. But most wouldn't be even close to strong enough to manage that feat, giving something which is still extremely damaging but which can be dodged much more easily and which will often leave the wielder overextended unlike with a smaller weapon.

It's all in the physics.

>You'd still be able to hit harder with a two-pound sword than an eight-pound one, because you'd be swinging that much faster
This fucking meme is so annoying.

There are diminishing returns when it comes to the weight/speed tradeoff. An ogre will gain no additional speed when he downsizes from a longsword to A knife; once you enter the realm of super human strength the weight floor on available weapons begins to go up very quickly, making larger weapons more and more pheasible.

>You'd still be able to hit harder with a two-pound sword than an eight-pound one, because you'd be swinging that much faster. And you'd be able to hit more often. And you could do so for much longer before tiring. Sword fighting is very much about speed.
Yeah? Can you hit harder with a dagger than you can with a two pound sword?

>le size doesnt matters meme
>conveniently ignoring supersonic bullets are much bigger than thei subsonic counterparts

get fucked retard

The butterface though.

>butterface
Seriously m8?

Internet porn has spoiled you. Even the face alone is well above average.

So there are tons of huge-tittied women with much nicer faces. Hendricks is a meme just because she's a non-porn actress.

look mate you wanted nudes of a woman with that physique, you got em. not my taste but whatever

anyway, anyone got the pic of some fat pasty guy covered in acne rating women 0/10?

Nah, I'm not him, I just couldn't stand by during a discussion of my favourite topic.

That's not nearly weeaboo enough

It's very cool, user, but that's nothing. Look at this.
>*teleports behind you*

Maybe just stick to cartoons.

And yet, his hands are free...

Well duh. How's he going to judo chop you with a pommel in his hand?

someone please post that webm of those guys with sparring swords and the fucker with the zweihander just pokes all competition to death before they can close the gap

>The rest of the manga will never get an anime adaptation
Feels bad mang

Manga > anime.

You'll be more likely to hit your opponent, and do more attacks per minute with a lighter weapon, but assuming they're the same shape and one is just heavier, a strong person would do more damage with a heavier sword than a light one; he can follow through with more weight to make what is a flesh wound with a light sword into straight up cutting a guy in half with a heavy one.

The 7 foot long great sword of Pier Gerlofs Donia says you can eat shit on all accounts.

>that off-center pommel
I can't tell if this is purposeful or if it was a mistake

I assume that the sword is so big, the center of balance of the wielder is to the side of the sword instead of down the hilt, so the pommel needs to be on the other end to get a little more balance....?

either way this is triggering

You've made the false assumption that two different masses wielded by the same person would accelerate to the same velocity. In actuality, the more mass it has, the greater its inertia. Therefore, the same person must expend more work to move the larger mass the same speed. There will be a certain threshhold for all people where they simple cannot meaningfully increase something to a faster speed.

Also you are ignoring different types of impact. Shearing forces aren't the same as compression forces and have completely different impacts on different materials. So for example, you can shear through flesh incredibly easily with a sharp steel blade regardless of its weight. However, if the weight is increased, it can't shear any better (sometimes worse because of the spring of the steel causing misalignment of the edge on impact). Steel is relatively difficult to shear due to its crystal structure, but the same structure is easy to bend with compression. A blunted weapon would increase compression impact as weight increases (and add more rest inertia).

It depends on so many factors that it reduces your statement to a pointless argument starter with no real resolution.

So ya tryna tells me I gotta krump 'em not chop 'em? Whad in da zog

no.

a 357 magnum revolver will hurt you a lot worse than a 22lr rifle or pellet rifle.

But a .357 Magnum rifle will do more damage than the revolver, because with no cylinder gap and a longer barrel the bullet will be accelerated faster.

Different weapon types are influenced differently by changes in weight if size is maintained the same.

Hammers, maces and picks would deal increased damage with greater head weight (up to the point where increasing weight would reduce the ability to effectively wield the weapon) as they mostly rely on inflicting crushing damage through compression.

Most "slicing" swords on the other hand gain little from increased weight as they rely more on increasing the cutting power of the edge through increasing the speed the edge is moving.

Axes and other chopping weapons do damage more weight maintaining the edge's inertia. Increased head weight will increase damage.

.357 magnum is a larger round with a more force from gunpowder behind it than a .22.

While the firearm may be smaller the actual weapon (the bullet) and motive force (gunpowder) in a .357 magnum is larger than that in a 22lr.

ROIGHT. So in da simpul senz, ya can't 'av too much weight on da clubba, but ya got ta make the choppas red so deyz go fasta ta chop betta?

More you need just the right amount of weight on your choppa so it doesn't get stuck and will chop through even if you hit something hard.

Ur alright for a git

I dunno man. The end of the manga drags on for a looong time.

I had a hard time keeping interest after the northern war arc. The power levels just got too high.

if ya choppa aint red alredy u aint usin it enuff, ya grot

shuddit ya lousy git, we'z lernin a speshyool enjuneerin corse. 'soides, evry nob woth 'is teef knows ya got ta paintit red or da 'umie blood rusts it ta pieces

foight me ya mincin' grotbag. speshul engineer mah foot outta yer stinkin mouf

Ya ain't got any teef in ya ya suigshit, takes reel taktikul jeyenyus ta undahstand 'ow ta make da choppas betta. But den again you's a grot, n grots ain't much known for da cunnin or da brutal