Small Characters and Weapons

[ve4grm]

So small characters in 4e can't use two-handed weapons, and can only use versatile one-handed weapons two-handed, gaining no additional benefit from it.

So I have a couple questions.

1) Does a versatile weapon (say, warhammer) wielded two-handed qualify for the two-handed weapon Fighter bonus? What about if it's manditory to wield it that way. If not, does this mean that build is basically useless to a small character?

2) Why can a halfling wield a scimitar one-handed, and not a longsword. Both are roughly the same length (the illustration even shows the scimitar with a longer hilt than the longsword), both are mechanically balanced against each other (with Versatile seemingly being a nonability, with its own internal tradeoff of not using s shield), but the scimitar is mechanically superior by far, yet only when halflings are concerned.

3) Wouldn't you be able to design a +3/1d8/non-versatile weapon, call it a "Long-ish sword", and use it one-handed as a halfling? This makes the whole issue of versatile weapons confusing to me.

4) What do halflings and other small creatures get in return for this reduced weapon availability? Back in 3e, they got a +1 to attack. Now, I don't recommend we bring back this bonus, but they don't seem to get anything to replace it. Small characters moved from "less damage, more accuracy" to just plain "less damage".

Now, none of this is important if you're playing a rogue (they can use all light blades normally), wizard, warlock, or cleric, but the ranger (including bow ranger), fighter, paladin, and warlord are all one-handed or two-handed weapon users.

What do you all do for this? Sure, for halflings, using the light blades or scimitars makes flavourful sense, but what about goblins (axes are big) or other small races?

Opinions? Options?

 

[abyssaldeath]

So small characters in 4e can't use two-handed weapons, and can only use versatile one-handed weapons two-handed, gaining no additional benefit from it.

So I have a couple questions.

1) Does a versatile weapon (say, warhammer) wielded two-handed qualify for the two-handed weapon Fighter bonus? What about if it's manditory to wield it that way. If not, does this mean that build is basically useless to a small character?

2) Why can a halfling wield a scimitar one-handed, and not a longsword. Both are roughly the same length (the illustration even shows the scimitar with a longer hilt than the longsword), both are mechanically balanced against each other (with Versatile seemingly being a nonability, with its own internal tradeoff of not using s shield), but the scimitar is mechanically superior by far, yet only when halflings are concerned.

3) Wouldn't you be able to design a +3/1d8/non-versatile weapon, call it a "Long-ish sword", and use it one-handed as a halfling? This makes the whole issue of versatile weapons confusing to me.

4) What do halflings and other small creatures get in return for this reduced weapon availability? Back in 3e, they got a +1 to attack. Now, I don't recommend we bring back this bonus, but they don't seem to get anything to replace it. Small characters moved from "less damage, more accuracy" to just plain "less damage".

Now, none of this is important if you're playing a rogue (they can use all light blades normally), wizard, warlock, or cleric, but the ranger (including bow ranger), fighter, paladin, and warlord are all one-handed or two-handed weapon users.

What do you all do for this? Sure, for halflings, using the light blades or scimitars makes flavourful sense, but what about goblins (axes are big) or other small races?

Opinions? Options?

1) I would consider it a two-handed weapon for small characters, but I don't think RAW supports that.

2) Strictly game mechanics and weapon balance as a whole.

3) Not sure.

4) I don't have my books in front of me so I can't answer this with any certainty.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

3) Wouldn't you be able to design a +3/1d8/non-versatile weapon, call it a "Long-ish sword", and use it one-handed as a halfling? This makes the whole issue of versatile weapons confusing to me.

4) What do halflings and other small creatures get in return for this reduced weapon availability? Back in 3e, they got a +1 to attack. Now, I don't recommend we bring back this bonus, but they don't seem to get anything to replace it. Small characters moved from "less damage, more accuracy" to just plain "less damage".

Now, none of this is important if you're playing a rogue (they can use all light blades normally), wizard, warlock, or cleric, but the ranger (including bow ranger), fighter, paladin, and warlord are all one-handed or two-handed weapon users.

What do you all do for this? Sure, for halflings, using the light blades or scimitars makes flavourful sense, but what about goblins (axes are big) or other small races?

Opinions? Options?

3) Yeah, but its called a rapier and is a superior weapon.

4) They make up for it in their racial abilities. And really, small creatures arent nerfed. They are as useful as any other race. And just like other races, they fit into certain architypes and not into other. Its just how they are.

 

[Anthony Jackson]

1) Does a versatile weapon (say, warhammer) wielded two-handed qualify for the two-handed weapon Fighter bonus?

Yes. Furthermore, it doesn't qualify for the one-handed weapon Fighter bonus. The fighter bonus is a function of how the weapon is wielded, not the type of the weapon.

2) Why can a halfling wield a scimitar one-handed, and not a longsword.

Because they wrote it that way? It's not really a big deal; until you get scimitar dance you're better off with other weapons.

3) Wouldn't you be able to design a +3/1d8/non-versatile weapon, call it a "Long-ish sword", and use it one-handed as a halfling?

Players don't get to design weapons. However, this weapon is the Rapier.

4) What do halflings and other small creatures get in return for this reduced weapon availability?

Racial abilities, in theory. In practice, little balancing is required, because small races are usually poor choice for classes that use heavy weapons.

 

[abyssaldeath]

Yes. Furthermore, it doesn't qualify for the one-handed weapon Fighter bonus. The fighter bonus is a function of how the weapon is wielded, not the type of the weapon.

I thought the fighter bonus was worded "when wielding a two-handed weapon" not "when wielding a weapon two-handed".

 

[frankthedm]

4) What do halflings and other small creatures get in return for this reduced weapon availability? Back in 3e, they got a +1 to attack. Now, I don't recommend we bring back this bonus, but they don't seem to get anything to replace it. Small characters moved from "less damage, more accuracy" to just plain "less damage".

You don’t get a bonus for trying to dive a Segway or a Scooter on the highway either. Front line is just not the Halfling’s best role. Being bite sized is not an advantage, though to be honest the damage loss is usually a bit less than the damage loss would have been in 3e.

What do you all do for this? Sure, for halflings, using the light blades or scimitars makes flavourful sense, but what about goblins (axes are big) or other small races?

I use small creatures as fodder, rather than rely on them as competent combatants. Kobolds and Goblins are sent in to die in droves rather than sent in as significant foes. I’d also rule if a long sword takes two hands to use for a Halfling, so does a scimitar.

 

[burntgerbil]

as often as we miss with important powers, I would not say that the extra +1 prof bonus from longsword makes it inferior to the scimitar.

Also - according to the PHB, you could make a halfling TWF ranger with two scimitars, correct ?

 

[markl]

Front line is just not the Halfling’s best role. Being bite sized is not an advantage, [...]

Actually, the halfling racial abilities and feats make them very good defenders; they are hard to hit, which is a good thing for a role that makes things want to hit them. And it's not the defender's job to do damage, so they're OK there too.

 

[ve4grm]

3) Yeah, but its called a rapier and is a superior weapon.

4) They make up for it in their racial abilities. And really, small creatures arent nerfed. They are as useful as any other race. And just like other races, they fit into certain architypes and not into other. Its just how they are.

First, no, it's not called a rapier. A rapier is a light blade, this is heavy. If a +3/1d8 heavy blade is a superior weapon, then a longsword should be a superior weapon, versatile or not. It is not, hence "it's a rapier" is an invalid argument.

For your other response, no, they really don't make up for it with their racial abilities. Halflings are a good race, but no more powerful than any other PHB race. The MM small races are a decent amount weaker.

And yes, the small races are best suited to certain archetypes. Elves make good Rangers, but that doesn't prevent them from being pretty good Paladins and Warlocks when they want to be. Dwarves are good Fighters, Clerics, and Paladins, but that doesn't prevent them from being good Wizards when desired. Halflings (and other small creatures) are the only races that get an actual penalty towards playing a full half of the core classes. It doesn't matter that they are pretty good rogues.

Because they wrote it that way? It's not really a big deal; until you get scimitar dance you're better off with other weapons.

Unless you're a halfling, in which case it is the single best one-handed weapon in the game.

Players don't get to design weapons. However, this weapon is the Rapier.

Since when could nobody design something for D&D?

And this is NOT the rapier. See above.

Racial abilities, in theory. In practice, little balancing is required, because small races are usually poor choice for classes that use heavy weapons.

This is a circular argument.

- Halflings aren't good for front line roles because they get smaller weapons.
- They don't need bigger weapons, since they're not good for front line roles.

You fail to realise that the only reason they aren't good fro front line roles is that they get smaller weapons. They are equal in all other aspects.

as often as we miss with important powers, I would not say that the extra +1 prof bonus from longsword makes it inferior to the scimitar.

Also - according to the PHB, you could make a halfling TWF ranger with two scimitars, correct ?

You are correct on both. The +3 of the longsword is beneficial. But when you need to wield it in two hands, that benefit is very diminished.

And yes, you could make a halfling TWF Ranger with two scimitars. But those are the only non-off-hand weapons you can do it with. They are mechanically superior to short swords for all but Rogues.

--

Look, the main point is, small races get a penalty with 4 of the 8 core classes. No other race in the PHB of MM gets this.

 

[Hypersmurf]

1) Does a versatile weapon (say, warhammer) wielded two-handed qualify for the two-handed weapon Fighter bonus? What about if it's manditory to wield it that way. If not, does this mean that build is basically useless to a small character?

A warhammer is a one-handed weapon. Whether you're wielding it one-handed, or two-handed, or two-handed as a small character, it's a one-handed weapon, and will benefit from the one-handed weapon Fighter path, not the two-handed weapon Fighter path.

For a Large creature, a two-handed weapon can actually be treated as a one-handed weapon. A Large Fighter using a greatsword would not benefit from the two-handed weapon Fighter path, because for him, the greatsword is a one-handed weapon.

For a Small creature, a versatile weapon is a one-handed weapon, not a two-handed weapon; it merely has the requirement that it must be wielded two-handed.

There is only one weapon in the PHB that a Small Fighter with the two-handed weapon path can apply his bonus to - the Short Bow. It's possible that further supplements will include more versatile or two-handed weapons with the Small keyword, but at the moment Short Bow is the only one.

-Hyp.