| From: | Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Cheetahs and Knives |
| Date: | Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:52:55 +0000 |
wrote,
> Would people consider a small (roughly 3 foot tall) person wielding a knife
> to do standard knife damage, or something in between sword and knife? My
> thoughts here lie on the fact that a person wielding a bladed weapon that
> is 'sword sized' relative to their own body will be thrusting and swinging,
> and putting their body into it, so to speak. Whereas a person wielding a
> 'knife sized' weapon (sized accordingly with their own size) would be poking
> and slashing, ie putting less relative force behind it.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> - Cheetah
>
I think you answered your own question. A small person wielding a
knife with a strenght of 1 hits as hard as a bigger person hitting
with the same strenght (Str+1 L, Therefore 2L if I'm not mistaken).
IMHO, there is no reason to either increase/decrease the damage done
when taking the size of the attacker into account. And since many knife
attack techniques already use slashes and parries (parrii? parryes?
;) ), the difference between a big person wielding it, and a small
person doing the same, would be pretty small. Therefore, the difference
between using a knife in a typical poking fashion, and using it in a
"Steven Seagal"-way >>insert:shiver<< will be mainly differenciated
in skill, not size.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is A knife is A knife is A knife...
It's not a short sword for small people, nor is it a potato peeler
for trolls. Only skill and strenght play a part in differenciating
the two.
Trinity
"Life is a blur"
