Small Weapons?

[TheEvil]

Why do switchblades use small ones?

Concealability.
Now will you actually answer my question?

 

[TheEvil]

Not so for a buton. Your elbows stay close to the body, giving a relative rotation from shoulder to elbow of roughly 6" (dependant on body size, of course). The parts providing power are hips, forearms, and the clubs rotation in the hand. Given that a double weapon such as the quarter staff does require a longer arm reach to maintain stability, the distances would be comparable for those of a smaller creature.

And, as has been pointed out to you at least a couple times, do statistically the same damage.

Also remember that boxers and wrestles have weight divisions based on specific rules. Boxers and wrestlers are routinely beaten in fights by smaller opponents who don't follow those rules.

Side note: Brazilian Jujitsu, while a very nasty and effective grappling style, does not follow the rules of wrestling.

Yeah, I realized they were bad examples shortly after posting. Such is life.

But these digress from the main point:
How is a small quarterstaff different form a medium baton?
How is a small great club different from a medium club?
How is a small shortsword diferent from a stilletto, and why are those able to use a dagger also able to use a stilletto?(piercing and slashing vs piercing)
Why is a human using a Two handed sword built for a large race taking penalties comparable to the same human using a small shortsword?

Mass of the user. Not a bad place for a houserule about what it is considered.
Ditto.
What book are you getting the Stilletto from? I thought they were considered daggers in the rather simplistic D&D weapon system. (For the record, I think you should be able to slash with short swords and thrust with longswords.)
Because D&D has a pretty simplifed combat system and where every roll of the dice doesn't mean a swing of the weapon. The penality is standardized for simplicies sake. I thought that is what you wanted.

 

[Storyteller01]

Because D&D has a pretty simplifed combat system and where every roll of the dice doesn't mean a swing of the weapon. The penality is standardized for simplicies sake. I thought that is what you wanted.

Dunno. The size negatives seem like micromanaging...

 

[Lamoni]

The penality is standardized for simplicies sake. I thought that is what you wanted.

It seems like Storyteller wants a system to exactly mirror reality, not require any change from v3.0, and be so simple as to not require any math. Good luck.

As it is, 3.5 better defined weapons. In 3.0, you could pick up a greatsword from a giant, but did that mean it was a giant greatsword that you couldn't use effectively, or was it a greatsword that the giant was just treating as a longsword? Why couldn't halflings choose between shortbows and longbows? 3.5 still gives the exact same stats to the weapons as you change size, but it is streamlined and it gives all the same weapon choices to every race. It is much easier for halfling rogues to buy daggers and not have to use them as shortswords... it seems the problem you have is that you want your halfling to share his weapon with the ogre in the group. Well, it may be an annoying system to you, but it is definately not complicated. In our group, we have never even had anyone try to use an improper sized weapon. PC's use what they buy, and they buy what they can use best.

If you are after a system that mirrors reality more perfectly, you should throw out the standard -2 penalty, affix a unique penalty for each weapon that you would need to reference from a table (you said you wouldn't allow a giant dagger to be used as a greatsword so you should represent that with some sort of penalty while not giving any penalties to other weapons) Then you would have to add another 20 weapons that D&D doesn't include (like police batons, slashing shortswords, piercing longswords, throwing greataxes, etc.). Feel free to do that, but I don't see how that is helping your arguments against the 3.5 system.

 

[Storyteller01]

Concealability.
Now will you actually answer my question?

did earlier. The weapon's handle size is definied by the strees said handle has to endure when the weapon is used. Using hammers and slicing weapons (katanas, knives etc.) as examples, the handles are oval is shape. The wides end lines up with the weapon surface, to help absorb impact.

 

[Storyteller01]

It seems like Storyteller wants a system to exactly mirror reality, not require any change from v3.0, and be so simple as to not require any math. Good luck.

As it is, 3.5 better defined weapons. In 3.0, you could pick up a greatsword from a giant, but did that mean it was a giant greatsword that you couldn't use effectively, or was it a greatsword that the giant was just treating as a longsword? Why couldn't halflings choose between shortbows and longbows? 3.5 still gives the exact same stats to the weapons as you change size, but it is streamlined and it gives all the same weapon choices to every race. It is much easier for halfling rogues to buy daggers and not have to use them as shortswords... it seems the problem you have is that you want your halfling to share his weapon with the ogre in the group. Well, it may be an annoying system to you, but it is definately not complicated. In our group, we have never even had anyone try to use an improper sized weapon. PC's use what they buy, and they buy what they can use best.

If you are after a system that mirrors reality more perfectly, you should throw out the standard -2 penalty, affix a unique penalty for each weapon that you would need to reference from a table (you said you wouldn't allow a giant dagger to be used as a greatsword so you should represent that with some sort of penalty while not giving any penalties to other weapons) Then you would have to add another 20 weapons that D&D doesn't include (like police batons, slashing shortswords, piercing longswords, throwing greataxes, etc.). Feel free to do that, but I don't see how that is helping your arguments against the 3.5 system.

Not after anything that mirrors reality (isn't going to happen), just seems that the 3.5 gives everyone something else they ahve to keep track of, or min/maxers a reason for using said giant greatsword (just a -10!? Well with this feat... add nauseam).

I see no problem with limiting or adjusting weapons negatives, but given my own experience and the examples I've provided I believe 3.5 to be overly restrictive. If it isn't made just for you, you can't use it effectively. Nor can you lessen those negatives with anything less than the expenditure of a feat, given that intelligent critters can do so with far less time or effort (unless it's extremely disproportionate).

As for IE trolling, I apologize if it seems this way. I've only got two things about the 3.5 system that bugs me, one I've openly admitted to being wrong to. This just happens to be the other one.

 

[TheEvil]

did earlier. The weapon's handle size is definied by the strees said handle has to endure when the weapon is used. Using hammers and slicing weapons (katanas, knives etc.) as examples, the handles are oval is shape. The wides end lines up with the weapon surface, to help absorb impact.

So there you have the answer to your own question! A smaller sized weapon is not up to the stresses that a medium sized user will put on it. To simulate this, D&D gives you a -2 to hit. I suppose it could also be handled with breakage rules, but since nothing wears out in D&D, that doesn't really fit the system.

 

[Storyteller01]

So there you have the answer to your own question! A smaller sized weapon is not up to the stresses that a medium sized user will put on it. To simulate this, D&D gives you a -2 to hit. I suppose it could also be handled with breakage rules, but since nothing wears out in D&D, that doesn't really fit the system.

Suppose, but I'm still skeptical about breakage generating a negative to hit, rather than a decrease in damage (hand axe vs a small axe).

Also, if weapons are the same relative damage and type of damage, and same relative size and weight, isn't it absorbing the same impact?

 

[TheEvil]

Suppose, but I'm still skeptical about breakage generating a negative to hit, rather than a decrease in damage (hand axe vs a small axe).

Also, if weapons are the same relative damage and type of damage, and same relative size and weight, isn't it absorbing the same impact?

Not with the D&D armor class system. In essence since you are rolling to break past the armor, a to hit penalty can be used to reflect that you can't hit as hard. This is why strength gives a bonus to hit as well as damage, to reflect your ability to push past defenses. With an improperly sized weapon, you are not able to bring your full force to bear. Your second question leads into this.

Even with a weapon of the same dimensions, that hand that holds it makes a difference. When a weapon strikes or is struck, the force is tranmitted to the hand of the wielder. Here is where the size of the handle most comes into play:

With a smaller handle, that force is distributed across a smaller area, putting a greater strain on the fingers holding it. Too small a handle and you don't have enough hand strength to hold it. Not to mention a fair amount of discomfort. This is less true on a thrust, thus do the handles of thrusting weapons often have a small cross-section. Ditto on light slashing weapons: they are not meant to give or recieve strong blows.

With a larger handle, the force is distributed across a greater area, but that area isn't fully confined by the hand. This leads to greater strain on the fingers, since the farther the force is from the restraint (fingers), the more strength it takes to hold it. This is often even worse then trying to hold a smaller handle, as threshold for pain is a limiting factor there. Here, lever action will often just pop the handle out of your hand.

This make any sense?

 

[Storyteller01]

Not with the D&D armor class system. In essence since you are rolling to break past the armor, a to hit penalty can be used to reflect that you can't hit as hard. This is why strength gives a bonus to hit as well as damage, to reflect your ability to push past defenses. With an improperly sized weapon, you are not able to bring your full force to bear. Your second question leads into this.

Even with a weapon of the same dimensions, that hand that holds it makes a difference. When a weapon strikes or is struck, the force is tranmitted to the hand of the wielder. Here is where the size of the handle most comes into play:

With a smaller handle, that force is distributed across a smaller area, putting a greater strain on the fingers holding it. Too small a handle and you don't have enough hand strength to hold it. Not to mention a fair amount of discomfort. This is less true on a thrust, thus do the handles of thrusting weapons often have a small cross-section. Ditto on light slashing weapons: they are not meant to give or recieve strong blows.

With a larger handle, the force is distributed across a greater area, but that area isn't fully confined by the hand. This leads to greater strain on the fingers, since the farther the force is from the restraint (fingers), the more strength it takes to hold it. This is often even worse then trying to hold a smaller handle, as threshold for pain is a limiting factor there. Here, lever action will often just pop the handle out of your hand.

This make any sense?

Better than anything else so far...

Still would prefer seeing it (making said weapon and testing).

Mainly because mass produced (medival style)weapons whose power output increased (hammers axes, spears, etc) didn't increase te witdth of the handle. They distributed the stress over both hands. This meant keeping the handles simple, given that they could never fully predict who was using said weapon.