Longswords for Halflings in SRD?

[Storyteller01]

An anecdotal example; take it or leave it.

We had a boy in the children's aikido class named Adam. Definitely a Small critter (the top of his head hit me below the waist, and I wear a 32 inch hakama. Definitely under the 3 foot marked as defined by the SRD) that could, albeit clumsily, handle a full length shinai. He had no problems handling a wakizashi length shinai or using the wooden tantos. The training weapons were made for adults.


Now figure in that Adam isn't nearly as developed as an adult of any race would be. He doesn't have the manual dexterity (and most small races are better at this than human adults). He doesn't have the strength of an adult of any race. A chimpanzee [average height of 70 cm (2.29 ft) to 100 cm (3.28 ft) per http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/300.shtml] ] can man-handle a fully grown human male, so a small humanoid can develope strengths well above what a toddler gain achieve.

Clip of man being beaten by chimp (third clip from the bottom):
http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2005/12/14/index.html

If a child who meets the criteria for a small creature can wield a blade of similar size and marginal weight difference without any apparent discomfort, why is a similarly proportioned creature with significant physical advantages suddenly going to suffer a penalty for the same weapon?

 

[Ranger REG]

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

Because they preferred a slashing weapon over a piercing weapon?

IMHO, better not to scale weapons using Medium-sized creature like a human as benchmark, or we'll get some ridiculous weapon names on the larger end (fullblade, ludicrous-blade, etc.).

 

[taliesin15]

If a child who meets the criteria for a small creature can can wield a blade of similar size and marginal weight difference without any apparent discomfort, why is a similarly proportioned creature with distinctive physical advantages suddenly going to suffer a pentaly for the same weapon?

Well, that's an interesting point, too! Which begs the question why have size penalties in the first place, perhaps with the proviso that one size difference (up or down) doesn't or shouldn't necessarily make that much difference, especially if Strength is essentially the same. Kind of really a different wrinkle on the question.

Another point perhaps for another thread would be the question of long weapons, like Halberds and other pole-arms, and whether a small or rather less-heavy humanoid has the leverage to properly use it. Strength in this case should also be a consideration, though.

Glad to see some thoughtful replies to this post btw. Sure hope that cat familiar thing worked out ok for you, Storyteller.

 

[Storyteller01]

Glad to see some thoughtful replies to this post btw. Sure hope that cat familiar thing worked out ok for you, Storyteller.

Cat familiar?

EDIT: I remember now! Unfortunately that campaign fell through.

 

[Geoff Watson]

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.

Well, Merry and Pippen were "the tallest hobbits ever" so I wouldn't take that as typical hobbit height.

Geoff.

 

[Klaus]

Personally, I think that's just another glitch in the system. There are historical, heroic epic and testimony from martial artists I could quote, but look, there's what...just a few inches of difference between the weapons? A sword that is wielded more like a piercing weapon by a 6' human is certainly more likely to be used as a slashing weapon by a 3'-4' halfling. Seems perfectly logical to me.

And it seems perfectly logical that the halfling or gnome wielding a longsword would probably wield it in the way a human would wield a bastard or two-handed sword.

I've yet to see any convincing counter argument on this, and really no actual argument beyond that's how WTC has set it up. Obviously, I'll houserule it my own way, just like the funny business involving spears.

A shortsword is a 2´ length of steel with a sharp point that focuses the strength of the blow into a piercing action. The edges of the blade are only marginally sharp, to help pull the blade out of the target.

A longsword is a 3´-4´ length of steel sharpened along the edges, with a heavy pommel to offset the blade´s weight and help swing the blade around from stroke to stroke, in chopping motions.

Obviously, a halfling couldn't use a Medium shortsword as a Small longsword, as the weapons are quite different in form and function.

The 3.5 weapon sizes are quite accurate in that regard.

If people want Sting to work so badly, just add a simple paragraph to it:
- Sting is a dagger of Elvish make. As such, it is perfectly balanced to be wielded by humans and elves as a dagger and by dwarves and hobbits as a short sword.

And the DMG could use a new Special Weapon Property:
Resizing (+1 bonus) - A resizing weapon can shrink to match the size of its wielder, but it can never grow larger than the size it was originally crafted at. The wielder can cancel this property with a command word. Only melee weapons can receive this property. Faint Transmutation; CL 5th; Prerequisites: Craft Magical Arms & Armor, reduze person. Bonus: +1.

 

[Storyteller01]

A shortsword is a 2´ length of steel with a sharp point that focuses the strength of the blow into a piercing action. The edges of the blade are only marginally sharp, to help pull the blade out of the target.

A longsword is a 3´-4´ length of steel sharpened along the edges, with a heavy pommel to offset the blade´s weight and help swing the blade around from stroke to stroke, in chopping motions.

not wholly true. Those are over all lengths. Shortswords blades were usually up to about 18". Longsword blades are closer to 30", unless you're prepped to use it two handed. Reading on-line the 36" blades for longswords were designed as two handed models (the sites even refer to the longsword as a type of two handed sword).

A typical katana blade length varies from 27" to 32" (contemporary models made for folks of roughly 6'). Wakizashi ranges from about 17" to 20".

My katana has a 27" blade. It has more than 3" on the European Shortswords I've seen.



Blades tend to vary in form/function with need and differing makers. A wakizashi is a shortsword that doesn't fit your description. The same can be said for a machete, and they have been used in combat very effectively.

If the humans could adapt to the differences in each blade (mass production doesn't exist for them), so can any intelligent small creature. If you let something akin to 1 to 2 lb of weight throw you off, you really shouldn't be fighting.



If we're working on the premise of what can realistically be wielded, we should also look at what they would realistically be attempting to wield.

 

[Klaus]

And they *can* attempt to wield it. They just take a -2 penalty. Sting, for instance, could very well be a +5 bane (orc) keen dagger that Bilbo and Frodo wielded as a shortsword, with the enhancement overcoming the penalty for a net +3 to hit...

As for the wakizashi, we agree there. They're more like masterwork finesseable scimitars (1d6, 18-20, slashing).

 

[Storyteller01]

But you're not providing any evidence other than "WotC says so" or "a -2 isn't that bad".

 

[MarkB]

But you're not providing any evidence other than "WotC says so" or "a -2 isn't that bad".

Okay, here's one: The bastard sword. It's two-handed as a martial weapon, and 1-handed as exotic. Quite a few characters take that exotic proficiency, because being able to do that 1d10 damage instead of 1d8 with a 1-handed weapon is worth it.

If wielding mis-sized weapons has no penalty attached, nobody will ever bother taking Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword). Not when they can simply pick up a Small greatsword and gain the same effect with a martial weapon.