Longswords for Halflings in SRD?

[Storyteller01]

...snip...

If you were the halfling, which would you choose?

-Hyp.

The bottom one. Per this image.

realdefense.org/images/Bryce%20Sword.jpg

This is a wakizashi, a medium shortsword. An aluminum copy, but also consider that the halfling or gnome will be considerably stronger.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The bottom one.

Then why don't we make our own katana in those proportions?

Remember, the Medium wakizashi should be a one-handed weapon for a halfling. Your picture has him using it in two hands. Would you choose the bottom blade in preference to the top blade for one-handed use?

You're familiar with katana, so you'll be able to conceptualise a hilt with twice the diameter you're used to before answering.

-Hyp.

 

[Driddle]

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

... Not to be confused with a long smallsword.

 

[Storyteller01]

Then why don't we make our own katana in those proportions?

Remember, the Medium wakizashi should be a one-handed weapon for a halfling. Your picture has him using it in two hands. Would you choose the bottom blade in preference to the top blade for one-handed use?

You're familiar with katana, so you'll be able to conceptualise a hilt with twice the diameter you're used to before answering.

-Hyp.

A medium wakizashi would be a katana in a small creatures hands. Also consider that a longsword may also be wielded with two hands, even a Small one. You can see in the picture that the childs top hand has a full grip (thumb to fingers). A being that is nearly as strong as the average human would have no problems holding it one handed. For that matter, neither would the child.

The hilt will not be half as wide as a medium blade, unless you want the grip to snap. Small creatures have strengths camparable to medium creatures. Also, a small creatures hands will not be fully half the size of a human. It's closer to two thirds, if we keep using a child as an example (unless you know of a 3 ft child with 2" x 4" hands).


Taking a picture and shrinking it doesn't make an effective small weapon. It makes a smaller image.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Small creatures have strengths camparable to medium creatures.

The average human has a heavy load of 100 pounds. The average halfling has a heavy load of 60 pounds.

Also, a small creatures hands will not be fully half the size of a human.

Children are not in adult proportion. All the pictures of Lidda look in adult proportion, just smaller. At half the height, her hands will be half the size.

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

The average human has a heavy load of 100 pounds. The average halfling has a heavy load of 60 pounds.

Average load isn't considered in combat. A small creature with a 14 str still gets a +2 to damage. the chimp in the earlier video can't carry as much as a human, but still generated more than equal force in the fight.

The weapon also weights in a 3 lbs (in the extreme). Well within both carrying capacities.

Children are not in adult proportion. All the pictures of Lidda look in adult proportion, just smaller. At half the height, her hands will be half the size.

-Hyp.

Then show measurements to that statement. In 3.0, pictures of Lidda showed her using weapons that were either huamn made shortswords or small weapons that could be wielded by humans. Has the scale between editions changed?

If halflings are not the same scale as a human child, then arguments claiming what a child cannot wield, or that halflings are the same proportions as toddlers, are invalid.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

this argument isn’t to get something more powerful, its letting a small creature wield a larger weapon that’s in all respects equal to a weapon that they already use and using this human sized weapon in that way.

I’m going to fully agree with Storyteller01 on this issue.

a 1d6 19-20x2 human short sword is a 1d6 19-20x2 halfing long sword. Why the -2? as long as the weapon is wielded in all respects to its equivalent brother and you assume hardness is how you use the weapon (not raw but fixes the issue very nicely). For the med argument though, it would be equal to a large creatures long sword wielded by a med creature as a great sword.

That silly Photoshop job isn’t showing 1 size difference, how many long swords do you know of that look like this?

this is using a extreem of more then one size variant to prove a moderat view of wielding weapons that are close together in size, and what Storyteller01 is trying to argue.

This may have been a dagger trying to show that a dagger of Gargantuan size is silly, and it is, but it doesent even touch on the arguement about a short sword human sized sword to a small creatures long sword. Or even a human sized great sword to a large creatures long sword.

In the end though, I think that’s why i like the full blade. I always saw a full blade as a full blade. A 2d8 weapon made for a med creature. Not a large bastard sword wielded by a medeam creature. Now just for fun, does anyone think a large creature wielding a fullblade as a bastard sword would take a -2?

 

[Hypersmurf]

In 3.0, pictures of Lidda showed her using weapons that were either huamn made shortswords or small weapons that could be wielded by humans. Has the scale between editions changed?

Not at all. And if we were to take Lidda using that human weapon and use the 3.5 rules, she'd take the -2 penalty.

If it bothers you in 3.5, use the variant rule in the DMG.

The difference between 3E and 3.5 is not the scale; the difference in 3.5 is that we say because of the scale, a penalty is incurred.

If halflings are not the same scale as a human child, then arguments claiming what a child cannot wield, or that halflings are the same proportions as toddlers, are invalid.

I don't disagree. I think it makes more sense to say "This is what a Medium weapon looks like to something proportionately half the size of a human", and say "Does that look comfortable?"

When I look at the wakizashi designed for a creature twice as large as me, I can say "No, it doesn't look comfortable". And if someone says it looks fine, I call shenanigans.

This may have been a dagger trying to show that a dagger of Gargantuan size is silly...

Right. It's an illustration of the effect of the 3E weapon size system, that allows a human wizard to wield a Large dagger (designed for a Gargantuan creature) with proficiency, and at no penalty.

I always saw a full blade as a full blade. A 2d8 weapon made for a med creature. Not a large bastard sword wielded by a medeam creature.

Even in 3E, the flavour text (and even some of the mechanics) disagreed with you.

The Fullblade went through three versions - Sword and Fist first printing, Sword and Fist second printing, and Arms and Equipment Guide. In one of those (S&F 2nd), it stated that the weapon was too large for a Medium creature to wield!

Fullblade: A fullblade is 18 inches longer than a greatsword, and is too large for a Medium-size creature to use at all. A Large creature could use the fullblade with one hand, but would suffer the standard –4 nonproficiency penalty to its attack rolls, or with two hands as a martial weapon. A Large creature with the Exotic Weapon proficiency could use the fullblade in one hand with no penalty. A fullblade is also called an ogre’s greatsword.

In the other two versions, a Medium creature could use it with the EWP.

But it was not designed for Medium creatures. The ogre is Large; a weapon named "Ogre's" anything is one designed for Large creatures. And a weapon made for a Medium creature wouldn't be errata'd to say "Medium creatures cannot use this at all".

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

The difference between 3E and 3.5 is not the scale; the difference in 3.5 is that we say because of the scale, a penalty is incurred.

But you have yet to prove that. It's simply a blanket statement that supposes to promote realism without actually doing so.

I don't disagree. I think it makes more sense to say "This is what a Medium weapon looks like to something proportionately half the size of a human", and say "Does that look comfortable?"

Then show a weapon built for a smaller race that can be used in combat. Taking an existing weapon and shinking it, again, only creates a smaller image.

When I look at the wakizashi designed for a creature twice as large as me, I can say "No, it doesn't look comfortable". And if someone says it looks fine, I call shenanigans.

-Hyp.

Have you really ever seen a wakizashi built for someone twice your size? How can you be sure?

Comfort also isn't an issue with weapons. I have a two lb katana. An instructor has a 3.5 katana. It's uncomfortable to wield, but I don't take penalties for doing so (well... I do against him).

 

[pawsplay]

The "Sting" argument isn't compelling because hobbits are about half a foot taller than D&D halflings, twice as heavy, and are described as having paticularly dextrous hands. Further, the weapon in question was a particularly dainty weapon.

Thus, Sting is an argument for suspending the -2 penalty in specific cases, rather than reverting to the 3.0 rules.

I can speak from experience that a weapon with a hilt that is too large is a serious impediment to using it any fashion, and that a very large weapon should not be hilt-heavy, which many shortswords and broadswords are.