In relation to real life, what does it mean for a weapon to have

The weapon structure, and how it's used when wielded properly.

File: wounds.jpg (25KB, 320x252px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 320x252px

>>378097463
Obviously there are different kinds of damage and various weapons have different damage potential. e.g. if you're using a blunt sword meant for training purposes you're not as likely to harm someone as you are when you're using a sharp sword. The latter has a higher damage potential (which however may be reduced depending on the armour the opponent is wearing).
Durability is how often you can attack with a weapon (depending on what you're hitting), until it loses effectiveness. For example a wooden pole arm shaft will get damaged if it is in contact with sharp blades (which is why during the late middle ages they tended to reinforce the wood near the tip with metal), or a sharp blade might become dull if it's hit against metal armour.
Weight should be quite obvious: the weight of the weapon. However, weight alone is hardly representative of how easy to wield a weapon is, as the point of balance is obviously important too.

File: wounds (4).jpg (316KB, 785x1000px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 785x1000px

>>378098096

File: wounds.gif (24KB, 200x272px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 200x272px

>>378098173

>>378098096
That must've been extremely painful

>>378098275
4 u

File: wounds (2).jpg (51KB, 200x263px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 200x263px

>>378098253

File: wounds (3).jpg (90KB, 283x329px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 283x329px

>>378098319

>>378097463
Damage is how much you would fuck someone up with it by just generally hitting them randomly with it assuming you could pick it up to begin with. Training (proficencies/specialisation) and strength add their own bonuses.

File: 2a0ff77adb8d908f2d051cd9f2e40bc1fb97e7fa.jpg (268KB, 960x1444px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 960x1444px

>>378098397

>>378097463
>In relation to real life, what does it mean for a weapon to have "damage"?

I've always understood it to be lethality. You can kill someone with a rock, but doing so would be less efficient than shooting them with a gun.

>>378098492
Rock would be just as deadly if you manage to accelerate it to bullet speed.

>>378098616

Like I said, that would be less efficient than simply shooting them.

I imagine damage relates to how well a weapon was made.

Base stats would be clunky and illfitting. +5 would be masterwork. Or you could use the tried and true method of "its fucking video game magic".

>>378097463
>Isn't "damage" entirely dependant on the wielder's strength and technique?
damage would be a measure of expected performance given sufficient conditions for the item to be used properly. bonuses and penalties would reflect on better or worse operating conditions

>>378097463
>entirely dependant on the wielder's strength and technique?
No I'd rather let a strong guy hit me with a pillow, than a weak guy hit me with a sword

>>378099614
Would you rather a strong guy hit you with a sword, or a weak guy hit you with the same sword?

Well, in all but a few games you're dealing with very high level of abstraction in health/HP that is reduced by damage and when it reaches zero then target drops dead. The question is difficult because what you deal damage to in most vidya ("HP pool") isn't really a thing either.

What kills or incapacitates (or convinces them to give up fighting) people isn't just amount of kinetic energy of weapon transferred to the target but specifically damage to bone and soft tissue, and the design of the weapon can change that a great deal. For example, cuts actually don't penetrate even thick clothing (such as winter coats) very well and a slash from a sword designed to cut (balance closer to the tip of the blade, overall mass, curvature, sharpness, hardness of the blade and various other properties) may not do any "damage". Technique does play a role (for example, with straight swords in particular, while they can cut excellently, you kinda have to hit with the centre of percussion) but so does the design and quality of the weapon. Moreover, if the cut does penetrate any resistive material that might or might not be there, these properties affect how big of a gash the weapon leaves in flesh and that affects how much bleeding there is (ie. how quickly the adversary succumbs to blood loss) or if the cut is deep enough to sever arteries, tendons or to damage vital organs that hinders the ability to function if it doesn't incapacitate the target outright.

Even when you're thinking of percussive weapons, the design of the weapon is does matter. For example, maces and hammers often had extrusions to "bite" into the metal instead of glancing away (armour was designed to guide blows away) so as to transfer the whole force of the impact, smaller head concentrates force on a smaller area and then you're of course dealing with physics of mass, leverage etc - a hammerhead in 1.5m pole is going to strike with a lot more force than one in half a mater one.

>>378097463
It's been invested into
magically

>>378097463
Let's be honest, the real reason for the +X weapon is to cope with a battle system that's built around 20-sided dice.

>>378099750
Why would you ask an irrelevant question?

The question in the op was if it was entirely dependant on the wielders strength and technique.
If that was the case you'd rather get hit buy the weak guy with the sword over the strong guy with the pillow.

>>378098096
>8
>>378098173
>>378098253
>>378098319
>>378098397
>>378098480
Did people actually fight skeletons?

>>378102168
>Not wanting to pillow fight with a strong guy
Fag

File: loss.png (234KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 600x600px

>>378102428
yes
The unseen war is still being waged.