Longswords for Halflings in SRD?

[taliesin15]

I've been reviewing the Monsters tables in the 3.5 SRD for possible upcoming low level encounters--I've found something I think is a bit of a mistake--under the listing for Halflings you have:

Armor Class: 16 (+1 size, +1 Dex, +3 studded leather, +1 light shield), touch 12, flat-footed 15
Attack: Longsword +3 melee (1d6/19–20) or light crossbow +3 ranged (1d6/19–20)
Full Attack: Longsword +3 melee (1d6/19–20) or light crossbow +3 ranged (1d6/19–20)

seems to me a Small Humanoid would have to wield a Longsword as a two handed weapon--am I wrong on this?

 

[KarinsDad]

This is a D6 Longsword (halfling sized one handed), not a D8 (human sized, two handed for a halfling) Longsword.

It's correct.

 

[Klaus]

You're thinking in 3.0 terms.

The halfling described is wielding a Small longsword (hence the 1d6 damage).

 

[Eva of Sirrion]

He's using a longsword sized for small characters, hence the lower damage die.

In 3.5 all melee weapons are classified as light, one-handed or two-handed. These groupings mean a character can use the weapon as indicated if the weapon is crafted for one of his size. The longsword is classified as a one-handed weapon, and one built for small characters does 1d6 damage.

Make sense?

 

[taliesin15]

Sure it makes "sense", but why not just call it what it is, i.e. a short sword?

 

[Knight Otu]

Sure it makes "sense", but why not just call it what it is, i.e. a short sword?

Because it is not a short sword, but a long sword. A small longsword, maybe, but a longsword. Not to mention that there are weapons for which there simply are no smaller/larger equivalent - For an ogre's bastard sword, fullblade is somewhat established, but what do you call a halfling's bastard sword? Why would a Tiny fairy call its rapier a toothpick, when it can't use it as a toothpick?

 

[MarkB]

Sure it makes "sense", but why not just call it what it is, i.e. a short sword?

Because that's not what it is. A short sword is still designed for a medium character to use - its hilt is too large for a halfling's hands, and it's balanced all wrong to be wielded as a longsword. Sure, a halfling could use it, but they take a -2 penalty for using a mis-sized weapon.

If a halfling wants a one-handed sword that he can wield properly, he'll buy a longsword that's sized for small characters to wield.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Sure it makes "sense", but why not just call it what it is, i.e. a short sword?

Size-ist.

 

[pawsplay]

In D&UD 3.5, halflings are the size of toddlers, and hence, use longswords that are too small for humans to use well.

 

[frankthedm]

The 3.5 rule took [the] Sting away from the halfling rogue.

In 3.0 It was assumed that as weapons got smaller and larger only the handedness changed. This was fine more or less except for the fact weapon proficiency was not linked to weapon size. This made a problem that

A Large Heavy mace would officially be a 2 handed 2d6 simple weapon a cleric could wield
A Halfling rouge got to wield what would be the size equivalent of a long sword for free.
A large war hammer would be 2d6 x3 weapon that made the great axe even more inferior.

Thus in 3.5, the wrong size weapon causes -2 to hit per size category off. I think begrudging a halfling rogue Sting is a smack in the face of tradition and there should have been a 2 handed hammer in the core rules to start with. Though I understand about the large heavy mace [but put my vote in for the greatclub to be a simple weapon].