Lamoni said:
I understand your point... however, I think that it is balanced out considering the difference in mass and velocity (the larger creature often has a longer arm to give it more velocity). There is a difference between the two weapons based on area, BUT it isn't that pronounced. A 'large' longsword is most likely just as sharp as a 'medium' or 'small' longsword. The difference in area is negligable. If you take a whack at someone's side, the sword is connecting with as much area as the target is thick. Irregardless of what size sword you are using. And since we established that they are all just as sharp, we can't really compare very different surface areas. Stabbing would be the same. Now, there would be a large difference in surface area if we took a different weapon like a warhammer. Each warhammer would be progressively heavier as it increased in size though.
Let's modify your example...
Take two thick metal plates, one with 4 times the surface area (and 4 times the weight). Lay on your back, drop one plate on your stomach and then the other. Which one hurt more? Actually they may hurt about the same since the larger one was spread out over more area.
What does this conclude? There is no difference in damage done due to being larger or by having a larger weapon. But using a larger damage die STILL DOES make sense. Why? Because their strengths are NOT equal. One of the best ways to determine how strong someone is by having them lift as much weight as they can. If you go by the carrying and lifting tables, then you find that a halfling with a strength ov 16 is about equivalent to a human with a strength of 14. Since they are about equal in strength, you would expect about equal damage... and voila! that is what you get. The halfling would do 1D6+3 damage (average 6.5) and the human would do 1D8+2 damage (average 6.5).
I am sure there are other ways of looking at it, and you can make it as complicated as you would like. If you look at any rule hard enough you can find ways where it doesn't line up exactly with reality. However, most do a fairly good job by coming close and are very playable. That is good enough for me.
But, and this is important (to me), the strengths are indeed equal, as written in the book. And, your statement that the strength difference is +/-2, while good, doesn't follow through in all situations (see table below)
Although I do agree that you're statement that the strengths are not equal does seem to be the only logical explanation. And I feel that it IS the explanation. The different damage done to and by different sized weapons is a "hidden" strength modifier. It just seems overly complicated, and unnecessary. Why not instead have said that each size category smaller gives an additional -2 to strength, and each larger grants an additional +2?
Otherwise you're point here (when looked at like this) supports MY point:
"There is a difference between the two weapons based on area, BUT it isn't that pronounced. A 'large' longsword is most likely just as sharp as a 'medium' or 'small' longsword. The difference in area is negligible. If you take a whack at someone's side, the sword is connecting with as much area as the target is thick. Irregardless of what size sword you are using."
My point being that a small sword would do the same damage as if it were a larger sword, so the halfling's small weapon would be the same, except for strength.
The reason I object to this is that it does lead to some counterintuitive things. Like why CAN'T a halfling take a human sized dagger (d4) and rename it "short sword", and use it without penalty? As written the rules do not allow this. BUT, a halfling short sword does d4... so what's the problem? Poorly written rules.
Or, one of my favorite examples... the sling. Do tell me what would provoke a halfling to put smaller bullets in his sling? I mean, it's not like those bullets are oversized. One could say that the damage difference is due to the difference in sling area, spin and such. But then, given the same strength, a smaller spin area would simply result in a faster spin, and hence the same damage.
The difference between a simpler strength adjustment shows up very well in the monk table.
Monks:
Level Small (Min/Max Diff.) Medium (Min/Max Diff.) Large
1st–3rd------d4--------0/1-2-----------d6----------0/1-2---------d8
4th–7th------d6--------0/1-2-----------d8----------1/1-4---------2d6
8th–11th------d8-------0/1-2-----------d10---------1/1-6---------2d8
12th–15th----d10------1/1-4-----------2d6----------1/1-6---------3d6
16th–19th-----2d6 -----0/1-4-----------2d8----------1/1-8---------3d8
20th----------2d8------0/1-4-----------2d10---------2/1-12--------4d8
(I did think of that lifting table thing after posting, and did wonder what difference they showed in things. I'm glad you did that comparison for me.) Right away you notice that the difference isn't as simple as -2 to strength per size catagory smaller, as the lifting tables imply; Since -2 strength is only
-1 to damage, but this table shows that it starts as a -1 through -2 to damage, or a variable -2 to -4 to strength... although this could be partially justified by the fact that a strength adjustment does effect both the minimum damage and the maximum damage part of the equation.
However as you go up the table (or look at different weapons if you're not as interested in monk damage), you'll notice that the difference becomes greater and greater. It's most noticed between the small to medium creatures at levels 12-15, where the small monk is always doing one less (min side) and is on average doing two an a half points less damage, with the same strength. This is a difference of 4+ in effective strength. Of course, this will still change greater as things increase, and at 20th level a large creature does an average of seven more points of damage with the same strength than the medium creature does. Add this to the fact that this is a hidden strength penalty, so small creatures often take an additional strength hit "because they're smaller" and larger creatures often gain additional strength "because they're big". Now, sure, I don't have a problem with this strength difference, it makes sense. On the other hand, the fact that it's hidden often amplifies the difference because not everyone making creatures catches this intuitively. And then there is my opinion that it should not make as large a difference as it clearly does, when two creatures of the same strength can be doing an average of 7 damage (that's a equivalent of 14 strength!) just for being larger, and not for any actual strength difference.
(From Gnimish)
"Giving this my best shot in english: The halfling does hit on a more focused point, but the ogre hits so much harder that the amount of energy across the fist is still greater for the ogre. If you like, I can run the numbers for you to show how this works if you want to propose some of the physical parameters for an example if you will provide some numbers.
Lastly, a slapping motion is a much less efficient use of muscles and mass then a punching motion, again an apples to oranges comparison."
Actually, I think that they're quite similar points... because (as said) the ogre -- while having a larger fist, -- if it does have the same strength score should only be able to swing that fist as hard as the halfling could. Now, like I said, I do accept that we may be interpreting "strength" differently here, and that some may believe that larger creatures are using a completely different strength table than the smaller creatures. I personally figured that this was why small creatures are given a -2 strength comparatively. However, this is only minus 1 to damage, not the difference given in the differently sized weapons.
I would be interested in some numbers... but let me put it in the terms of an experiment that would make sense to me. First, we do have to start out with equal strength. This is because the strength factors are already in the damage equation. Therefore we should use a motor, or an engine of some sort, say one that swings a bar.
Now, put in a small bar, and a large bar. The engine will swing the bar at the same speed (as it's designed to do). The bar will go the same distance*. Now, I figure that the small bar will achieve a greater speed, having less mass. The larger bar will likely not achieve as much velocity, having more mass. ... Yes, I admit that I am assuming here that the engine is not strong enough to put both bars to full velocity, but that's something I plan to have in there, otherwise the small creature would be allowed to use the larger weapons, and this wouldn't be an issue (as it's there with all weapons, not only fists.) And so. Which (if either) would do more damage? The smaller weapon, or the larger? And why? Both are put on a machine with the same "strength"...
Or to say, the difference between the efficient use of a slap versus a punch is really what I am talking about.
*Both opponents have the same reach. We'll use humans vs. halflings for this. I do agree that if you give the opponent a larger amount of time to build velocity, the opponent can definitely use that larger mass to advantage by imparting more kinetic energy, but then if we were to use that, we'd also have to give the larger opponent fewer swings in the same amount of time, so we're leaving that out of the equation.
ar surface ratio may be 1:100 (at least) and the halfing to ogre fist surface ratio may be 1:8. Even if my SWAG isn't dead on, they give the right perspective on the comparison. Basically, you are comparing apples to oranges with your examples.
