Longswords for Halflings in SRD?
- Thread starter taliesin15
- Start date
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
taliesin15 said:
It's a longsword that deals 1d6. Look up longsword in the Weapons table, and you'll see Damage: S 1d6 M 1d8.
Did you read the text in the Equipment chapter at the start of the Weapons section?
The rule is there, it's clearly worded, it's not hidden. To be unaware of it requires not reading it, and that's not the fault of the authors.
Substitute a Fire Giant, if you like. They're still Large, so the Fire Giant's shortsword is a two-handed weapon to the halfling.
hafrogman said:
The lance is the only way I'm aware of to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand.
An ogre with a Medium greatsword is considered to be wielding a one-handed weapon, so that's not a way to do it.
-Hyp.
FireLance
Legend
A lance is a two-handed weapon that can be wielded with one hand while mounted. However, it is still technically a two-handed weapon, so according to the rules, you add 1-1/2 times Strength bonus to damage, and get 2-for-1 with Power Attack even when you are using it in one hand.hafrogman said:
For the record, in my games, a lance used in one hand while mounted is treated as a one-handed weapon for the purposes of Strength bonus to damage and Power Attack.
Ranger REG
Explorer
That is, until you play a hill giant PC yourself.taliesin15 said:
Should you deprived yourself of better arsenal for the sake of being an iconic hill giant?
I used to think of all gobilinoids as primitive and barbaric, until I (a DM) decided to make them challenging for high-level PC parties. They cried "foul" for not playing them properly.
Ahrimon
Bourbon and Dice
People keep trying to pick out one little example to show that the othe way is wrong. (both sides) Neither side is perfect. It's all an abstract system to make gameplay fun, exciting and not take 10 years to calculate whether that sword that's 1/2 an inch longer than normal actully hit the femoral artery causing the target to bleed out.
3.0 RAW allows for many unrealistic weapon usages (2d6 2h dagger, etc)
3.5 RAW Fixes the 3.0 problems but puts in what some to beleive an unrealistinc small<->medium conversion.
Ok, so we have one system that allows for broken weapons. And to fix would require a lot of exceptions. X works for Y unless Z. A works for B unless C or D, except if you have E then it's ok.
Then we have the other system that eliminates all of the extra required exceptions to be a more streamlined system. This system (I think most agree) fits the majority of situations with a simple modifier.
Which is better? That's all personal oppinion. Me, I'm playing a game where I want simple and easy without a lot of tables to compare what works with what. So 3.5, to me, is a more streamlined system.
<Here's where I get argumentative>
We're playing a game where we can take a lightning bolt to the chest and be good to go after a few days rest and you're complaining that it's "unrealistic" that the halfling has a harder time weilding a weapon that's designed for a creature twice his size?
And no, I don't buy the "they're made to take the same punishment so they must be built identical" argument when every wooden door I come across has exaclty X HP. They're not built the same. But again, I don't want to play D&D&Charts. Where I have to look up everything. This door is oak, so it has X hp and this door is Elm so it has Y hp.
If you're fine with adjucating weapons on the fly and 3.0 works for you, cool. Have at it. I want a game where I can pack up and move to another game and expect the basic mechanics to be the same.
It's obvious we're not going to convice you. I don't like how your stuck with the small<->medium and refuse to answer Hyp's question. You're complaing about the large dagger example, but it's using the same rules you are. So, unless you want to go into the house rules catagory for every conceivable combination I think the 3.5 rules are more conductive to a better gaming environment.
3.0 RAW allows for many unrealistic weapon usages (2d6 2h dagger, etc)
3.5 RAW Fixes the 3.0 problems but puts in what some to beleive an unrealistinc small<->medium conversion.
Ok, so we have one system that allows for broken weapons. And to fix would require a lot of exceptions. X works for Y unless Z. A works for B unless C or D, except if you have E then it's ok.
Then we have the other system that eliminates all of the extra required exceptions to be a more streamlined system. This system (I think most agree) fits the majority of situations with a simple modifier.
Which is better? That's all personal oppinion. Me, I'm playing a game where I want simple and easy without a lot of tables to compare what works with what. So 3.5, to me, is a more streamlined system.
<Here's where I get argumentative>
We're playing a game where we can take a lightning bolt to the chest and be good to go after a few days rest and you're complaining that it's "unrealistic" that the halfling has a harder time weilding a weapon that's designed for a creature twice his size?
And no, I don't buy the "they're made to take the same punishment so they must be built identical" argument when every wooden door I come across has exaclty X HP. They're not built the same. But again, I don't want to play D&D&Charts. Where I have to look up everything. This door is oak, so it has X hp and this door is Elm so it has Y hp.
If you're fine with adjucating weapons on the fly and 3.0 works for you, cool. Have at it. I want a game where I can pack up and move to another game and expect the basic mechanics to be the same.
It's obvious we're not going to convice you. I don't like how your stuck with the small<->medium and refuse to answer Hyp's question. You're complaing about the large dagger example, but it's using the same rules you are. So, unless you want to go into the house rules catagory for every conceivable combination I think the 3.5 rules are more conductive to a better gaming environment.
taliesin15
First Post
Sure, I see your point. However, I am kind of a traditionalist, and think that things such as playing monsters kind of absurd. Sure, if others wanna play Hill Giants, Were-Rabbits, and Half-Dragon Pixie-Bred Beholder Flumphs, fine--I think though there's a prevalent consensus based on the flavor of the game that Hill Giants (for example) are not smart enough or motivated enough to forge swords, and tend to just run around picking up boulders and downed trees to use as weapons, when they aren't just grappling. IOW, the notion of Hill Giants wielding swords is about as silly as Halflings wielding long swords--the latter supposedly being typical?!?Ranger REG said:That is, until you play a hill giant PC yourself.
Should you deprived yourself of better arsenal for the sake of being an iconic hill giant?
taliesin15
First Post
there you go, in many ways this is right, it is a matter of opinion, and though I disagree with your argument here (I think 3.0 is simpler, more logical, but still flawed), I think one thing we can all agree on is that there are sizeable camps on both sides, each with their arguments and opinions. Which itself should tell you something--3.5 didn't really fix the thing, any more than the latest version of Microsoft has fixed all the bugs and has no bugs to begin with.Ahrimon said:
pawsplay
Hero
taliesin15 said:
Where is this consensus? I don't remember signing up for it. Hill Giants are smart enough to take class levels, and could certainly learn to Craft. They're as smart as ogres, who wield swords and anything else. Plus, even if hill giants weren't motivated to make such weapons themselves, someone might find it of value to make a sword for them. Hill Giants are smart enough to be proficient with all simple and martial weapons.
Ranger REG
Explorer
I know, I'm a traditionalist, too. I see humaniti as an evolutionary doorstop as their primate cousin.taliesin15 said:
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
But once in a while, you have to buck traditions. Elves can survive in the deserts (a la Dark Sun and Zakhara), halflings can be outworlders (a la Cerilia), and some constructs can have sentience (a la Eberron).
Jhulae
First Post
Go to a toystore and find those toy swords that are made for kids.
As an adult, grip one. It will *not* fit comfortably in the hand. The grip is thinner, the pommel scrapes against the bottom of the hand because the grip is shorter, etc. All in all, it's not very comfortable to wield. It would even be harder to wield if you were wearing gauntlets or thick gloves. Your whole hand might not even be able to grip the weapon. That would be a distraction in combat.
Same thing if you pick up toy guns designed for younger kids. Again, it's hard to your hand on the whole grip. That would affect accuracy as well.
As an adult, grip one. It will *not* fit comfortably in the hand. The grip is thinner, the pommel scrapes against the bottom of the hand because the grip is shorter, etc. All in all, it's not very comfortable to wield. It would even be harder to wield if you were wearing gauntlets or thick gloves. Your whole hand might not even be able to grip the weapon. That would be a distraction in combat.
Same thing if you pick up toy guns designed for younger kids. Again, it's hard to your hand on the whole grip. That would affect accuracy as well.
