Advice wanted: 3.5 weapon sizing

[Storyteller01]

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.

Not that I'd mind, bt it would be expensive...

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).

Agreed. Which is why I don't mind the 3.0 rules so much. Easy to imagine the similarities.

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.

Which is something I don't fully understand, or can envision. Small folks only fght Samll creatures !? Per all the usual books/suppliments mall critters (gnomes and halflings specifically) tended to lie in secluded areas away from the big folks. Given how much both are supposed to enjoy eating, revelling, drinking etc the food larders alone would make them targets to muarading bands. Medium are larger creatures seem to be more prevalent. Even if said little people live behind bigger folks patrol lines, scouting parties can evade them unless the patrols are on high alert. And lets not forget the lions (cougars), tigers (wolves), and bears...

My view

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

Wierd huh? I don't see halfling armor being as thick as human armor, at least not without adding more to the armor check penalty.

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.

Guess I house ruled this (goes to not following the letter of the RAW?). Batons are considered clubs. I had no problem letting little folks double wield one. Then again, I let folks double wield halbergs (check the swedish royal honor guard [think I got the name right]. They still train in its use).

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).

This is where I compared function to proficiency. I don't see halflings using SS just like a LS; they're jusy very capable of using the weapon effectively. To quote Zorro; 'The pointy end goes in the other guy'.

As for the letter of the law, I don't think a halfling could. Weapon size trumps weapon description, with the exception of monkey grip and a few others. Regarless of EXP, the weapons size restricts the use to two hands. Bastard sword is still a Medium weapon.

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.

Meh...

 

[Storyteller01]

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.

Just don't see it. Thick armor gets in the way. Look at critisism for various bullet proof vests. Thickness as well as weigh limits mobility. Is causes the armor to work against itself. This would effect the movement at the joints for metallic armor.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Just don't see it. Thick armor gets in the way. Look at critisism for various bullet proof vests. Thickness as well as weigh limits mobility. Is causes the armor to work against itself. This would effect the movement at the joints for metallic armor.

That'd be a seperate thing then, wouldn't it? I'm just saying that 3e/3.5 does differentiate armor in some fashion. I'm sure there's plenty of excuses for why the armor wouldn't hinder any more than the larger version.

 

[Storyteller01]

That'd be a seperate thing then, wouldn't it? I'm just saying that 3e/3.5 does differentiate armor in some fashion. I'm sure there's plenty of excuses for why the armor wouldn't hinder any more than the larger version.

Which goes counter to the premise of the 3.5 changes. Honestly, they could just as easily given excuses as to why your giant can use a medium longsword, rather than codify the process.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Which goes counter to the premise of the 3.5 changes. Honestly, they could just as easily given excuses as to why your giant can use a medium longsword, rather than codify the process.

Like I mentioned previously though, the 3.5 rules for weapons are different, but they're not really more or less complex. All the essay's in this thread haven't convinced me the rules are flawed. They just convinced me people like argueing.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

They just convinced me people like argueing.

Do not!

The Auld Grump

 

[DungeonMaster]

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.

Oh I'm sure discipline is what makes a gladius effective. *rolleyes*
And I'm sure they all went towards longswords because they were less effective ... I mean ask the american army if they want to go back to muskets. *rolleyes*

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?

That's amazing that you managed to combine "nonsense" and the comparison between being hit in the arm vs. being hit the gizzard.
Let's try and add some sense: Would you rather let me whack you in the arm with a sword or poke you in the arm with a dagger?
Or would you rather let me whack you in the gizzard with a sword or poke you in the gizzard with a dagger?
Let me guess... the sword wins both times now right?

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?

Um... sure... Swiss mercenaries like the ones I find described here:
http://www.fact-index.com/p/pi/pike__weapon_.html
or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikemen
or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Reislaeufer_Luzerner_Schilling.jpg
Which all mention/display they carried swords for close combat and pikes for cavalry?
I'm sure the artist just drew them in there for kicks.

The sword was the weapon of nobility because it was the most convenient weapon to walk about with on a daily basis.

Do you have any idea how many swords have been found? At all? Were there that many noblemen? This is wrong on so many levels it's hard to describe them all.

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.

I've been doing it for 8 and have no where near the difficulty you have. Try hitting the spear haft at it's furthest point where they have less leverage than you do. When they have to readjust their aim is worst, so step in. Or use a sheild and walk into it. When in doubt, break the spear. Works like a charm, has been since time memorial.

 

[Storyteller01]

They just convinced me people like argueing.

Dance my little puppets, DANCE!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Me:
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.

Dungeonmaster:
1 and 3 are correct. 2 & 4 are completely wrong.

No, they're not.

Re: Point 2
A thrusting motion uses less energy for the same number of strikes because instead of swinging a mass through 45 to 135 degrees of motion at the end of a relatively fully extended arm, you are accelerating that mass almost linearly. The swing requires much more power and generates more force. (This, BTW, was why so many robots with spinning weapons won on battlebots). The base equation of Force = Mass x Acceleration (F=ma) must take into account the great speed at which the arcing tip of that longsword is being swung- its actually moving faster than your arm. In contrast, the tip of a thrusting moves the same speed as the arm.

Experiment #1- take a 3lb weight and swing it like a longsword. See how many times you can do it in a minute. After resting, try using the same weight in a thrusting motion from hip or even chest height. Experiment #2- Take the same weight and see how many times you can swing it like a longsword before becoming reasonably tired. Then repeat the test with a thrusting motion.

Using less force to do the same amount of killing? That's efficient.

Re: Point 4
Swordforum, ARMA, and the Oakshott institute have, at various times, posted articles and book exerpts about how deadly a thrust actually is, and distinguished that from "stopping power."

Briefly, a slash, just like a bludgeoning attack (or a bullet), generates hydrostatic shock in the body. A serious but non-lethal blow (like a deep cut/dismemberment of a shield arm) from a slashing weapon may drop an opponent quickly because the person goes into shock. In contrast, thrusts do not generate significant hydrostatic shock. A person in a rapier duel in the 1500s may have suffered numerous lethal wounds before actually collapsing. Puncturing a lung, liver, or intestine won't drop you quickly, but, with the medicine of the day, you're a dead man.

Even modern ER data supports this- you are more likely to survive a slashing wound than a puncture.

 

[DungeonMaster]

A thrusting motion uses less energy for the same number of strikes because instead of swinging a mass through 45 to 135 degrees of motion at the end of a relatively fully extended arm, you are accelerating that mass almost linearly.

Agreed 100%.

Using less force to do the same amount of killing? That's efficient.

I didn't mean energy efficiency. I meant battle efficiency and thrusting is not, as your next point thankfully agrees, is not efficient at dropping someone in battle. You can, incidentally train your body to swing a sword at a very respectable speed a thousand times in a day. I do it. Regularly. It takes on average 4 months of training. My students do it.

Swordforum, ARMA, and the Oakshott institute have, at various times, posted articles and book exerpts about how deadly a thrust actually is, and distinguished that from "stopping power."
Briefly, a slash, just like a bludgeoning attack (or a bullet), generates hydrostatic shock in the body. A serious but non-lethal blow (like a deep cut/dismemberment of a shield arm) from a slashing weapon may drop an opponent quickly because the person goes into shock. In contrast, thrusts do not generate significant hydrostatic shock. A person in a rapier duel in the 1500s may have suffered numerous lethal wounds before actually collapsing. Puncturing a lung, liver, or intestine won't drop you quickly, but, with the medicine of the day, you're a dead man.

Agreed 100%. I am a member of swordforum.com and read it regularly incidentally.

Even modern ER data supports this- you are more likely to survive a slashing wound than a puncture.

Disagree. Slashing wounds are the most terrible of wounds because they cause massive tissue damage. Modern analysis shows that a bullet hole poking a hole in you is not what kills you. It's when the bullet bounces around inside of you that it does its damage. Bullets are designed to maximize this effect.
You are much more likely to survive a stab wound than a slashing wound today, in our day and age, because of the extent of the damage from slashes from knives is much less than a sword slash. Modern ER data (sadly? thankfully?) doesn't have much to say about sword slashes because swords are illegal in most modern countries. Most swords found at fairs and in stores are "wallhangers" and will break if not outright have the blade detatch if actually used. Knife slashes are common, and very different.