Longswords for Halflings in SRD?

[Hypersmurf]

Have you really ever seen a wakizashi built for someone twice your size?

I've really ever seen a wakizashi built for someone twice the size of a halfling.

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

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.

Right. You have one flaw in a system, so now you build three into it?

A small creature using longspears?

humans using small spiked chains, and still gaining reach?

Small creatures getting shafted on treasure?


I'm not saying we should go back to 3.0, but the current system is not any better.

 

[Storyteller01]

I've really ever seen a wakizashi built for someone twice the size of a halfling.

-Hyp.

And you've seen a critter the size of a halfling wielding it.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

hyp, I think what this is all about is what me, and i think storyteller01 feels that the rules as they are right now, are silly. we all know that you take a -2 for human short sword, halfing long sword, switch up, but at least what I’m saying is I don’t think it should be this way, and im trying to convince others of this as well. So we are not saying you are wrong about the -2 as it stands right now, but that its kind of, um silly. Not that your silly in anyway, just i see the issue and the -2 as silly.

you can agree or not agree, as is your right, but i think storyteller01 has some pretty good real life examples that illustrates (w pictures too) that its... well... silly. Anyone have a better word then silly, thats not a derogatory or mean spirited words? I can think of any at the moment… curse you tv and ruining my language skills….

 

[Storyteller01]

It seems to me that's purely a holdover from previous editions, and that v3.5's weapon system is leaps and bounds superior in terms of consistency and simplicity.

If a halfling can make a weapon whose game-rules stats are those of a longsword rather than a shortsword, but which is scaled down to his size, why should he not wield that weapon instead of a medium-size creature's short sword?

Because, per 3.5 rules, there are more magical Medium shortswords in the world than Small longswords?

How is it simpler? You actually add another number to an already long equation.

Size of the critter + the size of the character + str or dex + weapon enhancement (+ bane enhancements if available) + feat bonuses (this can be 5 or 6 numbers on its own) + any environment issues + ...weapons size in relation to me??

 

[pawsplay]

And you've seen a critter the size of a halfling wielding it.

I've seen a three year old pick up a boffer sword.... I can take 'em.

 

[Storyteller01]

I've seen a three year old pick up a boffer sword.... I can take 'em.

And we've seen a 3 ft chimp take a man with no weapon at all. Want to go a round with him?

 

[Moon-Lancer]

pawsplay, I don’t think anyone wants to revert to the 3.0 rules, at least not fully, but i think two equal weapons should be fine to revert. The dagger issue was a way to get a 2d6 weapon even though you only had proficiency in a d4 or d6 weapon. But mechanically speaking, if a warrior was to wield a 2d6 dagger, it’s still a 2d6 weapon through and through. I think weapon types should be abolished, and the player chooses what weapon they are wielding. In 3.5 the bastard sword is a katana the way the game is written. The more weapons are made, the more they overlap with other weapons. I think seeing the game as fighters are proficient with a 2d6 19-20/x2 weapon should be sufficient. Ah flavor, well that’s all up to the player i think.

I have seen actual argument on what weapons can and cant do based off pictures in the players handbook. Excuse me? no no no, here let me draw you what my weapon looks like, its actually like this... a d6 is a d6 is a d6. It is illustrated (ha pun), in that many non player handbook characters wield very strange weapons compared to their player handbook counterparts but they are really the same weapon through and through. I think that in 4.0 it might be nice to be proficient with a weapon stat block and have weapons that are shown as examples of said statblock, becuse in 3.5 it seems to be the other way around

Now in the games I play, my dm lets me visuals the weapon any way I want, and I love that, but It annoys me a little bit when people make actual arguments of what a weapon can and cannot do because of its picture. Argue with your own imagination I say.

Sorry, I got off topic, and I I’m not implying that you don’t have an imagination paws. I don’t know you well enough to tell one way or the other. most i of this was just a tiny flame at none in paticular

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Storyteller, I was once like you in my dislike of the 3.5 rules.

Here is the quantifyable RW example that convinced me of why the 3.5 sizing rules are more accurate, and thus better than, the 3.0 rules:

I own a Dagger and a letter opener that are both 6.5" long. Both are made with high-end steel. The Dagger is a hand-made artisan knife, and the Letter Opener is a scale replica of a museum piece basket-hilted cutlass I obtained in Toledo, Spain.

The handle on the dagger is 3" long, and almost 2" around; its blade 1.25" across. The handle on the replica cutlass is .75" and .25" around, and the blade is .25" wide at its widest point. I can't even get my pinky-finger between the cutlass' basket and its hilt.

The cutlass weighs but a fraction of the dagger's mass.

In the 3.0 rules, the cutlass would be usable by a M creature as a dagger, despite the fact that he'd be gripping 2.25" of razor-sharp blade. Similarly, a 3.0 creature that would normally wield that cutlass as a longsword would be able to use that dagger the same way...despite being quite able to hide behind the blade like a tower shield.

In the 3.5 system, there are penalties- severe in this case- that would prevent PCs from trying this most of the time.

 

[Storyteller01]

Storyteller, I was once like you in my dislike of the 3.5 rules.

Here is the quantifyable RW example that convinced me of why the 3.5 sizing rules are more accurate, and thus better than, the 3.0 rules:

I own a Dagger and a letter opener that are both 6.5" long. Both are made with high-end steel. The Dagger is a hand-made artisan knife, and the Letter Opener is a scale replica of a museum piece basket-hilted cutlass I obtained in Toledo, Spain.

The handle on the dagger is 3" long, and almost 2" around; its blade 1.25" across. The handle on the replica cutlass is .75" and .25" around, and the blade is .25" wide at its widest point. I can't even get my pinky-finger between the cutlass' basket and its hilt.

The cutlass weighs but a fraction of the dagger's mass.

In the 3.0 rules, the cutlass would be usable by a M creature as a dagger, despite the fact that he'd be gripping 2.25" of razor-sharp blade. Similarly, a 3.0 creature that would normally wield that cutlass as a longsword would be able to use that dagger the same way...despite being quite able to hide behind the blade like a tower shield.

In the 3.5 system, there are penalties- severe in this case- that would prevent PCs from trying this most of the time.

This goes back to the 'wizard weilding the giants dagger' example (except maybe a fairy was involved??). It's an extreme example designed to break the system. In this case I agree that a penalty (or a flat out banning) is in order. But to penalilzed small critters for using small weapons... it doesn't seem necessary.