Simple Question on Huge Daggers and Tiny Longswords

[The Little Raven]

I know from fencing experience that a missized weapon is quite a bit more difficult to fight with. The balance is off, and the grips are usually uncomfortable, causing cramping during a serious fight. The penalty is perfectly appropriate.

 

[drnuncheon]

I know from fencing experience that a missized weapon is quite a bit more difficult to fight with. The balance is off, and the grips are usually uncomfortable, causing cramping during a serious fight. The penalty is perfectly appropriate.

Don't be silly. None of that matters, because Frank is able to swing a kid-size baseball bat through the air a couple of times without difficulty.

J

 

[FrankTrollman]

The point is, any missized grips are uncomfortable. Not just ones made for children - ones made for people who simply have smaller hands are extremely uncomfortable. It's like gloves - I wear large gloves, medium gloves cut off my circulation if I can get into them at all.

But that's also a fencing grip - which a baseball bat or a battle axe won't even have. Swords are custom made to the wielder - many other weapons are not. A sword not made to wielder is uncomfortable, whether the intended wielder was 2 inches taller than you or twenty.

Similarly, in the real world bows are made to exacting specifications. There isn't a onesizefitsall "bow" - bows come in a varierty of sizes and pulls - and using the wrong one is going to hurt you.

But we've abstracted that - so trying to ram it back in on the other end is wrong headed and pointless. Once we've assumed that the 5 foot person is somehow OK with the sword made for the six and a half foot person we've already essentially removed the grip from our calculations or assumed they had it adjusted sometime.

-Frank

 

[drnuncheon]

Once we've assumed that the 5 foot person is somehow OK with the sword made for the six and a half foot person we've already essentially removed the grip from our calculations or assumed they had it adjusted sometime.

You're trying very hard to make this a binary situation when it is not. Abstraction is not on/off. You can choose the level of abstraction.

Clearly a weapon made for someone who is almost your height and build is going to be easier for you to use than one made for someone half your height and 1/8 your weight - or twice your height and 8 times your weight - or even one made for someone (say) six inches shorter than you.

But the numbers don't provide that much detail, as you have said. If we go that route, we wind up with the Tri Tac system, where blade damage involves the multiplication of five or six different factors like blade sharpness, the quality of the hit, length of the blade and the percentage that penetrates the wound...

But that doesn't mean the only other option is to ignore it completely - not when you can tie it in to something that already exists in the rules like the size chart. You're trying to make a false dichotomy here when you say things like "we've essentially removed the grip from our calculations". The options aren't black and white, calculate everything about the grip or ignore it completely. They're a spectrum. The designers can choose where to put the 'break lines' for a difference. Tying it to the size chart is a balance between realism/plausibility and playability, and frankly, it's the one that makes the most sense given the already existing rules.

J

 

[hong]

Actually, you have more control with the knitting needle. It's inertia is negligible and it goes pretty much exactly where you tell it to. If you have one of the sharp ones, they are actually quite deadly. The problem, such as it is, is the reach on that thing (which is very small). There are no "control" issues with a knitting needle.

Spoken like someone who has never stabbed anybody with a knitting needle.

 

[Wylan]

My Dungeon Delver can reduce himself 3 times per day, as the Reduce Person spell cast as a 5th level wizard. When I am reduced my rapier only does 1d4 instead of 1d6. It makes sense to me because all my possessions reduce with me. I am smaller; my rapier is smaller, hence less damage.

Reduce Person
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
This spell causes instant diminution of a humanoid creature, halving its height, length, and width and dividing its weight by 8. This decrease changes the creature’s size category to the next smaller one. The target gains a +2 size bonus to Dexterity, a –2 size penalty to Strength (to a minimum of 1), and a +1 bonus on attack rolls and AC due to its reduced size.
A Small humanoid creature whose size decreases to Tiny has a space of 2-1/2 feet and a natural reach of 0 feet (meaning that it must enter an opponent’s square to attack). A Large humanoid creature whose size decreases to Medium has a space of 5 feet and a natural reach of 5 feet. This spell doesn’t change the target’s speed.
All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly reduced by the spell.
Melee and projectile weapons deal less damage. Other magical properties are not affected by this spell. Any reduced item that leaves the reduced creature’s possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown weapons deal their normal damage (projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them).

 

[FrankTrollman]

My Dungeon Delver can reduce himself 3 times per day, as the Reduce Person spell cast as a 5th level wizard. When I am reduced my rapier only does 1d4 instead of 1d6. It makes sense to me because all my possessions reduce with me. I am smaller; my rapier is smaller, hence less damage.

That happened with size reductions in 3rd edition and 3.5.

What is your point?

-Frank

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Read your books a little more closely, Hyp.

I don't have anything to contribute, except that this was EXTREMELY funny to me.

Game on!

AR

 

[Andion Isurand]

I've noticed that many people would rather complain and be lazy bums than try to change. God forbid such people ever open their eyes, ears and minds to new wisdom.

I'm sure many of you have already tried to explain this to such people, perhaps more than once, but lets try it again.

The 3.5 weapon system is superior to the 3.0 system in that it outlines weapon handedness much better ( light, one-handed, two-handed ) and when figuring the size of a weapon, actually takes into account not only the length of a weapon, but also the width of its handle.

Indeed, the new weapon size helps much better when it comes to the issue of smaller weapons, espeically daggers. In 3.0, a halfling could throw daggers made to fit the hand of a human for 1d4 damage. In 3.5, the halfling uses small daggers made to fit its hands at 1d3 damage each.

By the way, the set of pictures near the start of the thread were funny to look at.

As for the kitchen knife arguments earlier in the thread: By the 3.5 rules, a human can use medium-sized kitchen knives, shivs and brass knuckles without any problem.

 

[drnuncheon]

That happened with size reductions in 3rd edition and 3.5.

Actually, the reduce spell in 3.0 specifically did not change your size category. But yeah, I'm confused about the relevance here as well.

J