Adept said:
Your friend sure has very different experiences than me or the history buffs I know here.
That I am quite sure of.
Adept said:
Copper isn't good for edged weapons. It's way too soft and doesn't hold a good edge or point. The copper spear point would be fine for a few stabs against unarmoured humans (until you struck bone), but there is a reason bronze revolutionized warfare. Hammered bronze is hard and keeps a good edge/point.
Then you are talking about durability, not ability to inflict injury.
That is a different matter.
Adept said:
I can't imagine that your friend really thinks that there isn't much difference between a good viking spearhead of damast-steel, and a fire hardened "pointy stick" spear. That pointy stick spear would have a hard time penetrating an ordinary leather jacket, where the steel spearhead can rend good chainmail and even pierce plate on a determined thrust.
Of course there is a difference, but the difference lies in how good they are to penetrate armour, not how good they are at penetrate human flesh, which in the end, is the real damage.
It could be argued that RPGs take a bit to a simplistic approach to the whole dealing damage thing. Since it really is about penetration of protection and target penetration. Two different but linked aspects of ballistics and even historical weapons.
The main function of armour is to reduce the amount of force that gets applied to the target. That is the simplest way to look at it.
After that, things become a bit more complicated. That is why different spear and arrow heads are good at different things (and why different bullet configurations are good at different things).
For example; a broad arrow head like this;
will cause more trauma, more bleeding, and more tearing of the flesh. However it will not as easily penetrate armour as a narrow head (armor is always more resistent than human flesh).
In contrast, a narrow arrow head;
Will much easier penetrate armour, but it causes less trauma.
In the end however, it matters little, since it requires very little damage if you hit the right spot, to actually seriously injure or kill.
Adept said:
Parhaps it's using a melon to represent human head

that stuff just won't fly. A human skull is hard, and even the skin&muscles of the face offer significant resistance.
Yes, a human is harder, and has a bit more resistence. That is why you use a deeper measurement to represent lethal damage, 7 cm instead of the normal 4.5 cm.
It is not a perfect match, but the closest thing a normal person can get hold of, if you want to try to see what damage something causes.
You do not need much penetration to the bone surrounding the brain, in order to cause a lethal hemorraging. (This discussion is turning positively morbid).
In fact you do not even have to penetrate the bone in order to cause a lethal hemorraging, you just have to apply enough force in a specific point.
I think that is enough discussion on the grisly details of dealing damage to humans, or how to test a weapons effect.
It will suffice to say that RPGs are a game, played to have fun.
And that it would be better to group weapons of similar size, weight, construction, and use in one damage group.
For example; Longspear 1d8.
We could then modify the HP of the weapon depending on material of its parts.
And we could add a Penetration value, to give those weapons that are good at armour a better chance to penetrate armour, and those that are not, a worse chance. The penetration value would be applied directly to the Armour value of the armor struck.
But then, we are perhaps simulating too much, and slowing down the game. And it all ends up not being worth bothering with penetration, or what the point of a spear is made of.
It would suffice to say; Longspear Damage 1d8.