Science based methods to increase the damage of melee weapons?

May at least as to check again that comment deletion is in fact best course of action in this case?



4 Answers 4


It wasn't posted as a comment. It was posted as an answer, and since you confirm it was a comment, as the reviewers noted, it has been rightfully deleted.

  • $\begingroup$ Oops. I ment answer. Im unhappy about my answer being deleted. It was not a comment. I just dont keep in mind site-specific terms like comment/answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 6, 2022 at 18:46
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @SurprisedSeagull We expect that answers, actually answer the OP's question. While personally I think you were attempting to draft a frame challenge to the OP's question, as written it read more like commentary on the OP's post than an answer of any sort. $\endgroup$
    – sphennings
    Commented Apr 6, 2022 at 18:49
  • $\begingroup$ @sphennings author specifically asks about science, so, realism, and melee. About their intersection. And this is my answer - intersection is none, an empty set. It must contradict one or another requirement. You may think it is not the best answer, but at least it deserves not to be deleted on a whim. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 6, 2022 at 18:55

Answers are never for comments

You got enough Rep to make comments. Use them, if you leave a comment. Never use an answer to make a comment.

Don't answer in comments

You shall never answer in comments. Comments are to make the question/answer better, not to answer the question.



But I think the moderator's action is also understandable. As well as necessary.

The primary goal here, for those of us who respond, is to actually address the topic & focus of the query. While I get what you were trying to do, I think it was perhaps not sufficiently well executed and not sufficiently explained to save it from being flagged as commentary and deleted.

The OP didn't just "specifically ask about science". More specifically than "science" the OP asked about "melee weapons". And that in distinction from ranged weapons. I may be incorrect, but I note a slight disjoint between "specifically asks about science, realism, and melee" here in your Meta comment and "If you want to add melee - add it." (emphasis mine) in your Main answer. In other words, you seem to be throwing the whole concept of melee weapons around as a casual whatever, as if the nature of that weapon class and the martial arts that go with it are trivial and meaningless. In fact that kind of weapon is central to the query.

Sphennings thinks that perhaps you were attempting a frame challenge, and I rather agree with that assessment.


If you want to add melee - add it. But you will have to use magic for it. Because anything remotely scientific will make possible a projectile based equivalent that is better in every regard.

What began as a strong frame challenge kind of petered out after the period after "none". Rather than dismissing melee weapons, a frame challenge would seek to build upon the negative with an explanation of why the question itself doesn't make sense and then finishes up with an alternative. Check out this Meta discussion for more on the frame challenge.

Essentially, the frame challenge would be "There are no scientific ways of increasing the damage produced by melee weapons (premise). These are the reasons why (arguments). This is what I suggest you do instead (alternatives)." The frame challenge itself should explain your underlying premise in some detail and then defend your arguments. It needs to be robust: after all, you are fighting against an established fact of the OP's world!

I think the query itself could have been written a little clearlier --- why are we focusing on melee weapons? Are we to disregard ranged weapons and why? --- but the OP does clearly specify interest in melee weapons, and as a respondent you should respect that.

  • $\begingroup$ How would frame challenge look like in this case? Something like 'if science is used, then any effect of melee weapon can be transfered to a ranged weapon using this science, so use ranged weapon if science is to be considered'? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 6, 2022 at 23:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SurprisedSeagull --- A added a link and example of a frame challenege. If the query gets reopened, I hope to see your challenge all laid out! $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Commented Apr 8, 2022 at 11:40

A) The answer was factually wrong even in a way that couldn't be considered a Frame Challenge.

Your answer to the OP's question was a single word: none. That's factually wrong as the OP gave one possible solution: increasing the length of the weapon to increase the leverage. I can also think of making the weapon sharper, and shifting the weight away from the hand grip, and hollowing out a blunt weapon and placing a heavy ball in the hollowed-out-region, and making the weapon out of inelastic materials... There are a fair number of things that can be done to melee weapons to make them more damaging.

B) No supporting information was given about the answer.

Answers are expected to explain the assertion. "None" would have been acceptable, had you followed it with a couple of paragraphs explaining why "none" was a viable answer. You didn't do that (suggesting projectile weapons are always better is NOT an explanation for why melee weapons can't be made more damaging). Answers are expected to be reasonably thorough, meaning that the querent comes away from your answer with a better understanding of their problem either (or both) in terms of what the problems are and what the solutions are. In short, your answer was the dread one-line answer, which is entirely unacceptable.

Additional Remarks:

  • The statement, "anything remotely scientific will make possible a projectile based equivalent that is better in every regard" is never true, but even if it were, it would only be true if the technology for such a projectile weapon (like a hand gun) exists. The OP did not specify a time frame or the circumstances for using the melee weapon. It could have been in 2,000 B.C. It could have been the early Medieval era. Neither had RPGs. Worse, arrows were NOT better than swords in every regard. And to make a point, even today there are circumstances when a melee weapon is substantially better than any projectile weapon (stealth comes to mind). Which, not surprisingly (and entirely contrary to the opinions you expressed in the comments), is why melee weapons still exist and are still frequently used. In fact, in one regard a melee weapon is always better than a projectile weapon: they're cheaper.

  • The statement, "But you will have to use magic for it" is as false as the answer "none" and, like the answer "none," is provided without explanation or context.


@L.Dutch was right to delete the answer. If you feel a question is not well asked (and this one was not well asked), then please take the time in comments to help the OP improve their question. While almost no one does it, Stack Exchange actually expects people to not answer poorly-asked questions (see the Help Center).

But if you can't stand it and simply must answer, please provide well-thought-out answers. That one was not well thought out. You say that you did think it through in your comments, but you obviously failed to realize that it didn't matter at all whether projectile weapons were superior... or energy weapons... or psychic weapons... or any other kind of weapon. The OP is free to limit their question and you, the respondent, are not free to color beyond those limits unless there's something intrinsically wrong with what they're asking. That's what a Frame Challenge is for. But you did not have a Frame Challenge. Without the OP having provided a situation where the melee weapon would be used, you simply can't make the assumption that a projectile weapon will always be better (e.g. stealth...).

In other words, you answered based on a false assumption: that projectile weapons were an option.

  • $\begingroup$ It asks about science fiction specifically, that almost always means modern or future tech level, unless specificed otherwise. Which I accounted for. Weapons are intrinsically competition based - you have to use the best weapons, or your side loses. So, sci-fi and weapons are my assumptions, and are a part of question. Even for stealth, there are ranged options as well. From spring to electric options. About main points: improving a non-working solution does not give solution that is not a not-working. I explained why, in a competition-heavy environment like a war other options will dominate. $\endgroup$ Commented May 22, 2022 at 6:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It didn't ask about science fiction. It merely pointed out the scifi/fantasy happens to do something common. And you know nothing at all about why the OP asked the question ("in a competition-heavy environment like war..." is an assumption on your part, nothing more). You're fighting this rather than learning from it. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Commented May 23, 2022 at 4:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .