Advice wanted: 3.5 weapon sizing

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Enworld being the site for character optimization, when was the last time you heard of someone ask for help creating the halfling calvary fighter, charging into battle with their armored pony, brilliantly shining full plate, and deadly (but Small) lance?

Well, someone else has already posted about the halfling uber-cavalry, but I'll also mention Eberron: halflings as a race of dinosaur-riding nomads.

They cut things up pretty well.

 

[ARandomGod]

A 6' human averages ca 200lbs, and there are certainly 1000 lb obese humans who manage to breathe, though their life expectancy is less. Certainly a 1000 lb biped is feasible, or much more - look at Tyrannosaurs! Maybe you need a higher oxygen content than the Earth's atmosphere currently has, but for a fantasy world that's a minor change. With it you can justify bipeds up to around 20', the size of the largest giants. Say your planet has slightly lighter gravity, et voila!

Well, I wasn't talking about an obese human... you're right, that can happen. (Although I'll point out that medically speaking they do have a harder time breathing than a "normal" human. And they certainly cannot be as active). I was talking about someone with proportional bone and muscle structure.

Certainly a larger biped is indeed feasible. But not humanoid. They NEED those tails. And the different skeletal structure.

However you don't really need to go into actual science to justify it. A simple magical augmentation is enough. It's not all that out of place in a world where almost everyone runs at speeds approaching olympic, and heals of nearly fatal injuries sometimes overnight (sometimes much faster).

There's almost nothing short of killing a level one character that (s)he won't be completely over in less than a month without magical assistance at all.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I'd have to disagree on this one. Axes saw use because their mass either cleaved you in half or knocked you off balance. Trick to using one was maintaining balance and a central focus. The mass did more work than the footsoldier if used right. Anyone who's cut wood with one knows what I'm talking about.

The biggest weakness of the axe was a tendency to get stuck in the target. If the target wore chain or better the axe's damage (like most non-piercing weapons when used against armor) is more akin to blugeoning than slashing. However it was much more likely to do serious blugeoning damage through the armor than a sword was.

Contrary to the statement about 'cleaving in half' such things generally did not happen, even with the best stroke. Broken limbs, bleeding out, severed muscles, crushed skulls, oh my yes. Cleaved in twain? Not so much. While there are historic documents describing such it is not unknown for the writers of such to exaggerate, and for the person describing the events to be outright lying to the chronicler.

The Auld Grump

 

[Remathilis]

Arguementative I know, but ...

Why would a race whose at a disadvantage to use those weapon make small replicas of them (not counting the universal weapons such as the dagger, sword, and bow)?

I actually wish the designers had shown some creativity and developed original weapons/strategies for the the other races. Beats making smaller versions, which IMHO amounts to the same concept of using human hand-me-downs. Their expected to keep up with Medium races using a Medium races methods on a smaller scale.

Question: Do the 3.5 rules have Small/Large equivalents for armor?

1.) Creating new weapons for small races (and a few exist: gnome hook-hammers, halfling skiprocks) would go outside the bounds of what the PH should do. Soon, there would be specfic weapon lists for elves, dwarves, orcs, mindflayers, and anything else.

2.) For the most point, most weapons are archtypical. A dagger, axe, sword, mace, and bow all would look the same for a halfling because they are built functional (crush, slash, poke).

3.) A thought: small races fight small foes. Halflings and gnomes usually fight kobolds and goblins and avoid orcs and bugbears, leaving them to the bigfolk. A halfling using a halfling spear on a kobold is analagous to a human using a normal spear on an orc.

4.) Oddly, Armor is armor, cept for size and weight. :\

5.) I was always wholey annoyed my halfling wizard could NOT use a staff. Oh sure, he could take a club (the next size down) and call it a staff, but it wasn't the same. He could not double weapon the club (indeed, the only weapon that could be doubled for a small race was the GHH). and call it a staff or a broomhandle, it was still a CLUB, not a wizard's staff.

6.) The old equvilant weapons screwed up WP. A human rogue could not wield a longsword, but a halfling could wield a human's shortsword (which was analagous to a human LS). A halfling fighter could never use his WP in greatsword, greataxe, or halbred. I believe (and correct me if your wrong) buy a LITERAL reading of the rules, a halfling with a 13 str could wield a bastard sword one handed with the EWP, but never could wield a longsword without 2 Hands. A halfling also had very specific monk weapons he could use (which were a way of getting around the size-rule anyway).

All in all, short of gutting the whole weapon system, its the best comprimise: Use whatever you like/proficient in, just use it one dice smaller.

 

[DungeonMaster]

The thrusting sword (drusus/gladius) partnered with shield and pilum (a specialized 1 shot throwing spear) gained Rome the world.

Which they then lost to sword weilding barbarians?

The reason spear and shield or short sword and shield was so popular is because thrusting is 1) quicker than swinging; 2) more efficient than swinging; 3) takes less room than swinging; and 4) deadlier than swinging- very little of which is fully modeled in D&D.

1 and 3 are correct. 2 & 4 are completely wrong. If the spear was truly the weapon of choice then we would never have evolved the sword. The spear is definitely the more primitive weapon and the sword is definitely to what cultures evolved to. If the spear was more "effective" then we would never have had swords.
A thrust is a quicker motion but you never even get close to the amount of damage that a slash deals. The single spearman is quickly and easily dispatched by the single swordsman. You have to constantly worry about your weapon being broken when you use a spear unless the entire haft is made of metal at which point it's cumbersome. Grabbing a spear after a missed or deflected thrust is a most amusing way of rendering your opponent dead. There are so many factors in combat that we could spend days arguing which is better but really the historical record - that the sword was developed and in wide use - is a testament to the greater effectiveness of swords in real combat. The spear remains an effective weapon, but not as effective as the sword.
Now we could argue whether the shortsword is better 1-handed or the longsword but that's not a debate I'm interested in.

 

[DungeonMaster]

The mass did more work than the footsoldier if used right. Anyone who's cut wood with one knows what I'm talking about.

I won't argue that axes are historic weapons and have had their use in war tested - it's 100% true. What I have likewise been told is that we uncover many many more swords and spears than axes or other specialised weaponry in archeological digs.
Time for my rant (not directed at you specifically storyteller!): I'm a physicist, not an archeologist but I have freinds in archeology who share the same interests in ancient warfare. An axe is useful because of the immense amount of rotational kinetic energy it gets because its moment of inertia is very high. Basically the further away mass is distributed from the point of rotation the higher the moment of inertia, "I". Thus despite being the same mass and same length an axe can have an order of magnitude greater moment of inertia than a similar sword. When you're chopping wood, that's what you notice - the axe comes to a dead stop and all the energy is transfered to the wood. And to top it off you're swinging the axe overhead, and maximizing the rotational speed of your arms - human arms can only move so fast. If omega is the rotational speed then the total energy 0.5*I*omega^2 for an axe or a sword used in this way is dominated by "I" the moment of inertia. The axe causes a deep gash in the wood and the sword a not-as-deep gash.
In combat, you'll almost never be able to use the axe in this way - very few blows will deposit full energy into your (moving) target. The higher moment of inertia means you need to provide very stiff acceleration starting the swing and ending the swing to maintain a fighting posture (i.e. not get killed on the upswing or backswing). The lower moment of inertia sword will reach a higher top speed for the same swing and the square-law of the speed going into the rotational kinetic energy means you're not actually "hitting any harder" with the axe, you're dealing a significantly weaker blow.
Basically it becomes a trade-off between moment of inertia and speed. If you can swing an axe once in the same time it takes the swordsman to swing his sword twice you need a moment of inertia four times as large to deal the same telling blow. The omega^2 ends up killing you as weapons get heavier.
Impact physics is a very interesting field and not that well understood. The basics of conservation/non-conservation of momentum and energy are known but the devil is in the details, particularly material physics and high velocity impacts. A recent shuttle disaster, where foam broke through a reinforced shuttle wing like a bullet - where the glancing blow did more damage no less - shows exactly how little we know.
So my suggestion it to appeal to history.

rant over!

 

[Vocenoctum]

Question: Do the 3.5 rules have Small/Large equivalents for armor?

Technically, 3e's armor system and 3.5's are the same, but it's more like 3.5's weapon system really.

A halfling is perhaps half the height of a human, but much less than half the weight. For their trouble, they get slightly reduced strength, and they can only carry 3/4's as much. The armor weighs half of normal though, so even though all the halfling's dimensions are smaller, the armor's only reduced by half weight. So I'd think the halfling's armor is at least as thick as human equivalent.

 

[Andor]

Which they then lost to sword weilding barbarians?

Did you miss or ignore the part where he mentioned that the roman primary weapon was the gladius, or the piercing damage short sword. Besides which by late period the romans had A) Lost most of their famed discipline and B) Switched to using longswords modeled after those self same barbarians blades, mostly because effective use of the gladius requires that recently misplaced discipline.

1 and 3 are correct. 2 & 4 are completely wrong. If the spear was truly the weapon of choice then we would never have evolved the sword. The spear is definitely the more primitive weapon and the sword is definitely to what cultures evolved to. If the spear was more "effective" then we would never have had swords.
A thrust is a quicker motion but you never even get close to the amount of damage that a slash deals. The single spearman is quickly and easily dispatched by the single swordsman. You have to constantly worry about your weapon being broken when you use a spear unless the entire haft is made of metal at which point it's cumbersome. Grabbing a spear after a missed or deflected thrust is a most amusing way of rendering your opponent dead. There are so many factors in combat that we could spend days arguing which is better but really the historical record - that the sword was developed and in wide use - is a testament to the greater effectiveness of swords in real combat. The spear remains an effective weapon, but not as effective as the sword.
Now we could argue whether the shortsword is better 1-handed or the longsword but that's not a debate I'm interested in.

Good lord what a pile of nonsense. With regards to the relative deadliness of a slashing blade vs a piercing one I'll offer you a choice. Would you rather let me whack you in the arm with a machete, or poke you in the gizzard with a dagger? Supposing that a trauma team is at least an hour away? Personally I'd rather risk losing the use of an arm then take a dagger to the liver. And if the sword out classes a spear by such a large margin why is it late renaissance armies fielded with musket and pike rather than musket and sword? Or why did those swiss mercenaries brave enough to use a sword on a field of pikes draw triple pay?

The sword is superior in the tight press (though the most famously effective close combat sword, the gladius, is a piercing weapon, not a hacking one.) And it is a hell of a lot easier to carry about town. The sword was the weapon of nobility because it was the most convenient weapon to walk about with on a daily basis. That and it was the stock weapon of cavalry because you lost your lance in the first charge, whereas you could retain a sword, and calvary was the nobles job.

And re a single swordsman vs a single spearman. First off, that argument has almost nothing to do with historical usage as both were weapons of war, and secondly I've been studying swords in one form or another for 19 years and I have a hell of a time getting past a spearmans guard without taking a hit.

Is the spear a more primitive weapon? Obviously. It is a stone age weapon and the sword is not. (Discounting the aztec obsidian and wood blades.) Is it a more effective weapon in mass battle? Given that every army from 3000 BC to 1700 AD employed them (And they were phased out in favor of the bayonted musket, which is functionally a spear) I'd say yes. It's only problem is that in a tight press you need to cut the handle down to keep it wieldy, and once you cut it far enough, you end up with a sword. Which is why the romans had the gladius for the front line, and everyone else poked over their shoulders with spears/pikes.

 

[Storyteller01]

Contrary to the statement about 'cleaving in half' such things generally did not happen, even with the best stroke. Broken limbs, bleeding out, severed muscles, crushed skulls, oh my yes. Cleaved in twain? Not so much. While there are historic documents describing such it is not unknown for the writers of such to exaggerate, and for the person describing the events to be outright lying to the chronicler.

The Auld Grump

Yeash! Guve a uy some poetic license...

 

[Storyteller01]

The thrusting sword (drusus/gladius) partnered with shield and pilum (a specialized 1 shot throwing spear) gained Rome the world.

The reason spear and shield or short sword and shield was so popular is because thrusting is 1) quicker than swinging; 2) more efficient than swinging; 3) takes less room than swinging; and 4) deadlier than swinging- very little of which is fully modeled in D&D.

5) aims at areas most likely to suffer from internal bleeding/sepcis poisoning/vital organ shut down (works uner the rib cage rather than through the clavical).

Swod does offer a greater range of options though (bleeding points, tendon strikes, etc).