Longswords for Halflings in SRD?

[Storyteller01]

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.

Which is still using WotC generated stats. Please provide physical evidence, since the premise of the new weapon system is that it's more realistic, that a small creature of similar human proportions would have difficulties wielding a small human weapon.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But you're not providing any evidence other than "WotC says so"...

I'm not sure I understand. Evidence for what, exactly?

-Hyp.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Whhich is still using WotC generated stats. Please provide physical evidence, since the premise of the new weapon system is that it's more realistic, that a small creature of similar human proportions would have difficulties wielding a small human weapon.

Well, I can tell you from personal experience--to say nothing of tendonitis--that "just" a few pounds makes a huge difference in how a sword is wielded.

And while short swords that are a lot like short long swords do exist, they're in the distinct minority. Check out the gladius, or the baselard, and compare them to the Scottish basket-hilt claymore or a standard medieval arming sword. Even leaving aside cultural touches, one is clearly not just a smaller version of the other. The blades are shaped differently. They're weighted differently. They have different handle proportions.

Do the rules as they stand make sense in all cases? No, not even close. But neither is it accurate to say that the rules as they stood in 3.0, or any prior edition, made sense in all cases. My own, personal experience, as a collector and (sometime) user, is that the 3.5 rules come closer than the 3.0 ones did. I'm sure other people have differing experiences, but that doesn't invalidate mine, any more than mine invalidates theirs.

 

[Storyteller01]

That a small critter would take a -2 to use a weapon made for a medium creature.

 

[irdeggman]

Whhich is still using WotC generated stats. Please provide physical evidence, since the premise of the new weapon system is that it's more realistic, that a small creature of similar human proportions would have difficulties wielding a small human weapon.

Hmm if on a rules board for D&D then using those "rules" as the basis for the answer comes into question then this is obviously a "what if?" type of question and more suitable analysis and answers might come from posting it on a different thread.

Just a suggestion since the 3.5 game mechanics are pretty clear as to how they handle these things - changing those mechanics is an entireley different situation.

 

[irdeggman]

That a small critter would take a -2 to use a weapon made for a medium creature.

Ever see a child wield a baseball bat that was "sized" for a large man?

 

[Storyteller01]

Well, I can tell you from personal experience--to say nothing of tendonitis--that "just" a few pounds makes a huge difference in how a sword is wielded.

And while short swords that are a lot like short long swords do exist, they're in the distinct minority. Check out the gladius, or the baselard, and compare them to the Scottish basket-hilt claymore or a standard medieval arming sword. Even leaving aside cultural touches, one is clearly not just a smaller version of the other. The blades are shaped differently. They're weighted differently. They have different handle proportions.

Do the rules as they stand make sense in all cases? No, not even close. But neither is it accurate to say that the rules as they stood in 3.0, or any prior edition, made sense in all cases. My own, personal experience, as a collector and (sometime) user, is that the 3.5 rules come closer than the 3.0 ones did. I'm sure other people have differing experiences, but that doesn't invalidate mine, any more than mine invalidates theirs.

Which diverts from the issue, as trained fighters will describe a various shortswords as large knives. Even renaissance fighters described the rapier as an overlarge dagger that was ineffective in war. This takes into account that an intelligent creature can adjust to minor changes, and that said fighters are exposed to various distinctive weapons.

Your example also shows that a creature of the same proportions (in this case human) can use weapons that vary greatly without penalty (all weapons you described were of human creation, and humans tend to vary overall from 4.5 ft to 6.5 ft).

 

[MarkB]

Ever see a child wield a baseball bat that was "sized" for a large man?

Or, for that matter, a shovel?

A lot of work goes into shaping and balancing a weapon for a normal-sized human to use it. If sheer common sense doesn't tell you that putting that same weapon into the hands of someone half the height of a human, and a lot less than half the weight, whose hands are similarly reduced in size, is going to cause problems, I don't think anything will.

 

[Storyteller01]

Ever see a child wield a baseball bat that was "sized" for a large man?

Ever see a child training with a wooden dagger, nunchaku, sai, or a wooden shortsword? Now figure in that small races will be stronger than said child.

 

[Storyteller01]

Or, for that matter, a shovel?

A lot of work goes into shaping and balancing a weapon for a normal-sized human to use it. If sheer common sense doesn't tell you that putting that same weapon into the hands of someone half the height of a human, and a lot less than half the weight, whose hands are similarly reduced in size, is going to cause problems, I don't think anything will.

But you haven't provided anything beyond 'common sense says...', 'it should be obvious', or 'It's more realistic'.

I've provided examples of children wielding weapons made of medium adults without difficulty (I taught a children's aikido class of two years), proof that a small creature can be strong enough to fight an average sized man in hand to hand, and an arguement against removing the penalty shows that an intelligent creature can adjust for a variety of weapon weights.

I also own an 8" blade double edged knife, a 4" three edged blade stilletto, a 10" blade bowie knife, a 27" WWII refurbished katana, and a 30" stainless steel training katana. Of these weapons, only the katanas ones that couldn't be carted off by a 2.5' three year old, or handled with relative ease by a 3.5 5yr old (note a greater physical developement).

'Common Sense' tells me that the penalty is exaggerated.