Longswords for Halflings in SRD?

[Storyteller01]

Storyteller, I've read the whole thread.

A penalty that offsets the benefit of a +2 magical weapon isn't really significant, despite the item's cost.

Significant penalties would be ones like non-proficiency penalties (-4) or offhand fighting penalties without the right feats & weapons (-6/-10).

Then I'll ask again, if a -2 is so insignificant, why do players of small charaters have to spend gold to get weapons specifically made while their teammates find weapons for effectively free?

Why does everyone defending the penalty eventually resort to 'It's not that bad...'?


As for evidence of small folks using medium weapons, it's there. Even Hype is willing to consider it in two of his arguements, and has chosen to argue along halfling using a giant's shortsword as opposed to a human one.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Then I'll ask again, if a -2 is so insignificant, why do players of small charaters have to spend gold to get weapons specifically made while their teammates find weapons for effectively free?

I'll assume what you're asking here is: Why do M sized PCs tend to find more magic items that are sized to them as opposed to PCs of other sizes (S, L, or other)?

The answer is partly that there are more M sized humanoid races than S or L humanoid races, partly that there are more M sized humanoid races who are tool-makers, and partly that those M sized humanoids tend to outnumber S or L humanoids on a race by race basis. Take a look at your various campaign-specific gazeteers. In almost any given area, you'll find that, species-by-species, humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. outnumber halflings or gnomes...and that goes back to 1Ed.

If it really bugs you, just state that in your campaign, all magic weapons and armors have the property of "Sizing" (they shrink or grow to the appropriate size of their wielder) unless otherwise noted. Your non-M sized PCs will never want for appropriately-sized magic gear again.

Why does everyone defending the penalty eventually resort to 'It's not that bad...'?

Because it isn't.

 

[Storyteller01]

I'll assume what you're asking here is: Why do M sized PCs tend to find more magic items that are sized to them as opposed to PCs of other sizes (S, L, or other)?

The answer is partly that there are more M sized humanoid races than S or L humanoid races, partly that there are more M sized humanoid races who are tool-makers, and partly that those M sized humanoids tend to outnumber S or L humanoids on a race by race basis. Take a look at your various campaign-specific gazeteers. In almost any given area, you'll find that, species-by-species, humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. outnumber halflings or gnomes...and that goes back to 1Ed.

Which is all fluff. I'm asking why present a series of available races, then make two subpar in nearly all respects.

Because it isn't.

But why have it at all?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which is all fluff. I'm asking why present a series of available races, then make two subpar in nearly all respects.

1) I'm not a mind-reader of game designer motives, but I'd wager taht its because they were trying to be consistent with earlier editions of the game by presenting the original D&D races...and then adding some.

2) I'm not sure that everyone would agree with your assessment of halflings and gnomes as "subpar in nearly all respects." They have their strengths- its just not in melee combat with larger opponents.

Its a fact of life- by and large, in a fight between 2 individuals of equal training, their physical attributes are going to be a (not the) deciding factor. The larger opponent is probably stronger than a smaller one & will have superior reach to his opponent, both giving him an edge in melee.

The little guy has to use superior tactics, like fighting in an area that favors his smaller stature, or by using ranged weapons and avoiding close-range combat.

Consider that, right out of the starting gate, a halfling is +3 with a sling (+1 from his dex bonus, +1 from his range bonus, and +1 from his racial bonus with the weapon). They also have a greater effective encumberance limit because while they can only lift 3/4ths as much as a size M PC of the same Str, their equipment weighs 1/2 as much as it does for M PCs.

Not worse, not better...different.

But why have it at all? If it doesn't do what it's supposed to, why keep it?

I'd counter that it does exactly what its supposed to do- make using inappropriately sized weapons a less-than-optimal decision by using a simple modifier in a highly abstract system.

 

[Storyteller01]

I'd counter that it does exactly what its supposed to do- make using inappropriately sized weapons a less-than-optimal decision by using a simple modifier in a highly abstract system.[/QUOTE]


Which was never a problem to begin with...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Then I'll ask again, if a -2 is so insignificant, why do players of small charaters have to spend gold to get weapons specifically made while their teammates find weapons for effectively free?

Depends on the campaign.

'Against the Goblin Horde' would have the halflings and gnomes chortling with glee...

As for evidence of small folks using medium weapons, it's there. Even Hype is willing to consider it in two of his arguements, and has chosen to argue along halfling using a giant's shortsword as opposed to a human one.

No, I'm looking for a response to the halfling/giant question as a stepping stone.

I am absolutely convinced that a halfling using a giant's shortsword 'as a greatsword' should incur penalties, since it's designed for use by a creature so much larger.

Similarly, I am certain that a giant using a halfling's greatsword 'as a shortsword' should also incur penalties, since it's designed for use by a creature so much larger.

You haven't convinced me that a halfling and a human could interchange weapons with no problems whatsoever.

But I think that even if the difference were 'realistically' closer to -1 than -2, the elegance of a simple mechanic like "-2 per size category" redeems it for me.

I think a penalty is appropriate, and keeping that penalty easy to remember makes me happy.

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which was never a problem to begin with...

In your opinion- others, including the game's designers- obviously have a different opinion.

 

[Storyteller01]

But I think that even if the difference were 'realistically' closer to -1 than -2, the elegance of a simple mechanic like "-2 per size category" redeems it for me.

I think a penalty is appropriate, and keeping that penalty easy to remember makes me happy.

-Hyp.

Which is what erks me. If people are willing to be this blind over a game, just so they can have a mechanic written on paper, then it makes me wonder what else we miss.


Anyway, I'm out. I've made my case. Kudos to all, and good gaming.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If people are willing to be this blind over a game...

... what?

-Hyp.

 

[Ranger REG]

Which is what erks me. If people are willing to be this blind over a game, just so they can have a mechanic written on paper, then it makes me wonder what else we miss.

So, basically do you want to go back to human-scaled weapons? Let me know what a Storm Giant Wizard would have for his starting weapon proficiencies, 'cuz a human-crafted dagger ain't gonna wield in his hand perfectly ... like trying to fight with a penny nail.