Longswords for Halflings in SRD?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

Because it isn't?

Short sword (M): 10gp, 1d6 19-20/x2, Piercing, 2 lb., Martial Light Weapon
Longsword (S): 15gp, 1d6 19-20/x2, Slashing, 2lb., Martial One-Handed Weapon

 

[Geoff Watson]

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].

My favourite odd-sized weapon was the large dagger. Same stats as a greatsword, but can be thrown, and can be weilded by wizards with no penalty.

Geoff.

 

[GorTeX]

My favourite odd-sized weapon was the large dagger. Same stats as a greatsword, but can be thrown, and can be weilded by wizards with no penalty.

Geoff.

A large dagger would be a 2h weapon for a small creature, and impose a -4 penalty to the attack roll. A small creature could not use monkey grip on this as it is 2 size categories larger.

It would be a 1-h weapon for a medium creature and impose a -2 penalty to the attack roll. A medimu creacure could use monkey grip to weild this as a light weapon, but still suffers the -2 on the attack rolls.

Plus a Large Dagger only does 1d6 damage..

It'd have to be a Gargantuan Dagger to get the 2d6 of the Medium Greatsword..and you'd have to be large sized to be able to use it (at -4 to hit)

 

[ValhallaGH]

My favourite odd-sized weapon was the large dagger. Same stats as a greatsword, but can be thrown, and can be weilded by wizards with no penalty.

Geoff.

Ah, 3.0
"I swing. Hit! 2d6+3 damage."
"How does a wizard use a greatsword?"
"I don't. I use a large dagger. You know, that that Cloud Giant had tucked into his boot."

3.5 makes much more sense. An equivalent weapon is Gargantuan and un-usable by a human being. This makes perfect sense since the handle alone would be at least six feet long.

 

[Christian]

A large dagger would be a 2h weapon for a small creature, and impose a -4 penalty to the attack roll. A small creature could not use monkey grip on this as it is 2 size categories larger.

It would be a 1-h weapon for a medium creature and impose a -2 penalty to the attack roll. A medimu creacure could use monkey grip to weild this as a light weapon, but still suffers the -2 on the attack rolls.

Plus a Large Dagger only does 1d6 damage..

It'd have to be a Gargantuan Dagger to get the 2d6 of the Medium Greatsword..and you'd have to be large sized to be able to use it (at -4 to hit)

He's talking about 3.0. A normal dagger was a Tiny weapon doing 1d4 damage. Upsize it and you get a Small dagger which does 1d6 (and is now a 1-H weapon for a Small character, but still a light weapon for a Medium character, much like a shortsword except it can be thrown). Another size increase gives a Medium dagger (which is kind of a throwable longsword), and one more gives a Large dagger, which has the stats Geoff was referring to.

There's a reason they changed this up in 3.5, even if the change wasn't perfect ...

 

[Storyteller01]

D&D tends to be a game of numbers, so our reality based descriptions of weapons don't really work. To a collector, a shortsword can be accurately described as a big knife, although there are exceptions. In D&D, numbers don't mesh well with that description so the 3.5 system come to be.

 

[Patlin]

Fortunately for those who liked the hobbit, which as FrankTheDm points out had Bilbo using a dagger of Elvish make as a shortsword, the 3.0 rules still appear as alternate rules in the DMG. If as the DM you want to allow a little more freedom with weapon sizes, go for it.

 

[pawsplay]

Or maybe Bilbo just ran around with a -2 penalty. Of course, I'm not sure that hobbits in ME are as small as halflings.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Or maybe Bilbo just ran around with a -2 penalty. Of course, I'm not sure that hobbits in ME are as small as halflings.

Well, wasn't Pipen supposed to be the tall one at 4'3". I think that should answer the hobbit not exactly a halfling question.

 

[Storyteller01]

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

But the dwarf, who isn't much taller than the small creatures, whose proportions are very different from other medium creatures, can use weapons from (and have their weapons used by) other medium creatures without penalty...


Sorry, had to rant...