Small Characters and Weapons

[Draksila]

You didn't throw anything out, as it happens, at least for greatswords - weapons and armor didn't resize 3.5.

SIZE AND MAGIC ITEMS
When an article of magic clothing or jewelry is discovered, most of the time size shouldn’t be an issue. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they adjust themselves magically to the wearer. Size should not keep characters of various kinds from using magic items.

There may be rare exceptions, especially with racial specific items.

Armor and Weapon Sizes: Armor and weapons that are found at random have a 30% chance of being Small (01–30), a 60% chance of being Medium (31–90), and a 10% chance of being any other size (91–100).

Cloaks, vests, gloves, boots, bracers? Sure. Armor and weapons? They have a specific size, and they don't adjust to the owner.

Though you could get the Sizing special ability from Magic Item Compendium for your weapon, for 5000gp.

(Magic armor did resize in 3E, but not 3.5; magic weapons in neither.)

-Hyp.

Ah, thanks for that. Never did sit well with me, anyway... so I'm glad to hear that our stable of DMs misapplied the armor rules to weapons. Personally, I like that resizing for armor now requires a ritual. That concept I can actually agree with.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think halflings make bad defenders, just different ones. A halfling paladin gets a great AC against OA's, and with the halfling feat gets another +2 when two medium creatures are near him (and as a defender, that happens all the time). Combine that with the halfling reroll and they are actually one of the best "tank" races for the defender. But in exchange for that, they do less damage. Fair enough I say.

 

[ve4grm]

Given the ability to easily resize magical weapons I'm rather annoyed they ditched weapon sizes for PC's when it would have avoided this silliness.

You can resize armour with the Enchant Magic Item ritual. Not weapons.

Furthermore, Mike Mearls has said on the WotC website that if you wield a versatile weapon in two hands, it counts as two-handed for the reading of powers and class features. Think of versatile weapons as being both one-handed and two-handed -- what matters is how you're using them right now.

Thank you for that quote.

So what?

Seriously. Why is this important? Halflings have classes they're good at and classes they're not good at, just like every other race. So they're not good at certain classes in a way that no other race is not good at the classes it's not good at. It's not a significant distinction.

Name one other race that actively gets a penalty to 4 classes. Let's say the Dwarf got a -2 on all attack rolls with arcane spells, because the designers decided they weren't good with magic (moving back to 2e here). If they got nothing to balance this out for when they played arcane classes, people would be up in arms!

3) Yes, but why would you do it?

Maybe you want a non-high-crit weapon for your halfling, but want one balanced with the scimitar. Maybe you'd make a +2/1d10 axe weapon for your goblin hero instead (lose high crit, up damage one step). There are a number of reasons why you would want to do it. The point is that it is the same as the versatile version, and can be wielded in one hand, and is balanced according to anyone I've talked to.

I've been wondering what's your reason for asking these questions?
Are you looking at this from a player's or from a DM's viewpoint?
Are you worried about the halfling being sub-par or about the rules for small creatures being not well though out?

I am looking from a DM's viewpoint, though the problem was brought to my attention because of a PC I'm creating. This PC will likely end up using light blades, so it is unimportant to him, but it brought the issue to my eyes.

I'm not worried about halflings being sub-par, mostly. I'm worried about other races. I'm designing a small character race right now, and if I need to give them an additional bonus (if it's considered that the halfling has additional bonuses), then I'd really like to know.

But, primarily, I am concerned that the rules for small creatures are incomplete and not well thought out.

I don't think halflings make bad defenders, just different ones. A halfling paladin gets a great AC against OA's, and with the halfling feat gets another +2 when two medium creatures are near him (and as a defender, that happens all the time). Combine that with the halfling reroll and they are actually one of the best "tank" races for the defender. But in exchange for that, they do less damage. Fair enough I say.

Fair enough. But, again, that is only halflings. If that's the balancing factor, any new small race needs to be given similar benefits.

Aside from which, the race that suffers most ends up being the Ranger, as damage output is their livelihood. Defenders aren't in too bad of shape, and Warlords aren't all that concerned. It affects them, but not as much. But Rangers...

Sure, they can use Scimitars. But why should they have to? Why should that be their single best option, hands down?

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

You can resize armour with the Enchant Magic Item ritual. Not weapons.

Considering there are no more weapon "sizes" for PC's of course you can't resize them. If their were weapon sizes it is a very reasonable assumption that Enchant Magic Item would work on weapons given the underlying concept behind that implementation.

Given that was the major issue in 3.5's weapon size rules and with the addition of weapon keywords having a very concrete effect on powers the current weapon system is a major step backwards.

 

[theNater]

Aside from which, the race that suffers most ends up being the Ranger, as damage output is their livelihood. Defenders aren't in too bad of shape, and Warlords aren't all that concerned. It affects them, but not as much. But Rangers...

Halfling rangers really aren't that bad off. Two-weapon fighting is rough for them, but a halfling archery ranger is competitive with dwarf, half-elf, and tiefling rangers of either build.

That +2 dex translates to a +1 attack and damage on all attacks. Let's assume our characters take a 16 on attack stat before racial modifiers. We get:

Halfling shortbow: +6 attack, 1d8+4 damage(avg 8.5)
Other longbow: +5 attack, 1d10+3 damage(avg 8.5)
Other longsword: +6 attack, 1d8+3 damage(avg 7.5)
Other battleaxe: +5 attack, 1d10+3 damage(avg 8.5)
Other bastard sword: +6 attack, 1d10+3 damage(avg 8.5)

Without a feat, our other characters must choose between one point less accuracy or one point less on average damage. At the cost of a feat, a two-weapon ranger can match our halfling on those two fronts. Note that doing so does include all of the normal drawbacks two-weapon style has compared to archery(must be in melee, must keep two weapons up-to-date, etc.).

I am aware that higher die types get better use out of powers with multiple [W]'s in them, but ranger powers differ from those of most classes in that they are more likely to do multiple instances of 1[W] or 2[W] rather than just doing 5[W] or 7[W]. This means the halfling will get to apply his damage bonus multiple times per power, so he is keeping up quite well.

Sure, they can use Scimitars. But why should they have to? Why should that be their single best option, hands down?

They don't have to. The rapier and the katar are at least as good as(and arguably better than) the scimitar. Even the short sword can out-value the scimitar in certain situations.

 

[ve4grm]

Considering there are no more weapon "sizes" for PC's of course you can't resize them. If their were weapon sizes it is a very reasonable assumption that Enchant Magic Item would work on weapons given the underlying concept behind that implementation.

Given that was the major issue in 3.5's weapon size rules and with the addition of weapon keywords having a very concrete effect on powers the current weapon system is a major step backwards.

Oh, geez. Sorry, misread your post before.

 

[ve4grm]

Good points, theNater, especially for the archery ranger. Point accepted. The elf and eladrin beat the halfling, which is fine, but the halfling is quite good at the archery side.

Not all small races will have a +2 to dex, however. They are at the same point as the other races, but with a lower damage die.

Other small race, shortbow: +5 attack, 1d8+3 damage (avg 7.5)
Other small race, short sword: +6 attack, 1d6+3 damage (avg 6.5)

Unless the balancing point for this is that all small races need to have either +2 Dex or +2 Str?

Let's use Gnomes as our example race, rather than halflings.

They don't have to. The rapier and the katar are at least as good as(and arguably better than) the scimitar. Even the short sword can out-value the scimitar in certain situations.

Yes, both of those are as good as the scimitar, but both of those require you to spend a feat to use them.

In certain situations, yes, higher proficiency bonus beats all.

--

My current train of thought is to reintroduce weapon sizes, but have weapon damage fixed for the weapon. You can then re-size the weapon through the Enchant Magic Item ritual, as with armour.

This way, if you find a medium-sized +3 longsword (+3/d8/versatile), you use the ritual to make it a small-sized +3 longsword (+3/d8/versatile).

Thoughts?

 

[firesnakearies]

My response to this thread can be found in my forked thread, here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=237121

 

[ve4grm]

My response to this thread can be found in my forked thread, here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=237121

Actually, that's not what I'm looking for at all. I'm not looking for additional superior weapons, but rather decent military weapons that are not scimitars.

And/or a reason that small characters are limited without compensation.

It's a good list, but it doesn't answer my concerns at all.

 

[Gloombunny]

And/or a reason that small characters are limited without compensation.

To some people, that halflings make poor fighters is a feature rather than a bug.