Small Weapons?

[TheEvil]

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.

The observavation came from using a wide variety of realistically weighted boffer weapons over the years with different handle sizes. The physics part came from an engineering degree.

 

[Storyteller01]

The observavation came from using a wide variety of realistically weighted boffer weapons over the years with different handle sizes. The physics part came from an engineering degree.

Can't argue with the degree, but it doesn't jibe with my experience. Had the oppprotunity to wack folks (living and dummies)with all manner of weapons. The grip needed for each weapon never changed. Given that the striking surface absorbed the greatest impact, all the hand needed to do was butress said weapon.

This is done on to points (ring/pinky finger and the pad of the index finger). Whne fighting with larger weapons, these points expand in distance (each hand covers each point). Because of this, my body weight absorbs the blow, not my grip. I have used axes and hammers with a handle less than an inch wide, and applied the same principles.

Given that a human fighting one handed applys about half his total power (if it were otherwise, two handed axes would not be more effective than one handed), and assuming that the average human weights in at 180 to 190 lbs (fighters are not body builders, and most of our military meet this standard unless they work out. also remember that members of Asian cultures tend to weight less, and still maintain the same power output), why is a halfling weighting in at roughly 60 to 70 lbs (I believe) doing less two handed? This little folks do use heavy (by their standards) tools to manipulate the same environment humans live in (cutting trees, dovetailing the wood, etc.).

 

[TheEvil]

Can't argue with the degree, but it doesn't jibe with my experience. Had the oppprotunity to wack folks (living and dummies)with all manner of weapons. The grip needed for each weapon never changed. Given that the striking surface absorbed the greatest impact, all the hand needed to do was butress said weapon.

This is done on to points (ring/pinky finger and the pad of the index finger). Whne fighting with larger weapons, these points expand in distance (each hand covers each point). Because of this, my body weight absorbs the blow, not my grip. I have used axes and hammers with a handle less than an inch wide, and applied the same principles.

By grip, I presume you mean handle size, not how you hold the handle. Different fighting styles can use substantially different grips (ways to hold) the same weapon. In any case, it has been my experience that people who are using a grip (handle) that doesn't fit their hand well recover from blows and blocks less quickly and are more likely to lose control of their weapon. Of that, having too large a grip seems to be the worst effected, though two-handed use can offset that. Basically, the better the handle fits your hand, the better the force is transmitted to your body.

Out of curiousity, what diameter of quarter staff are you used to, and why is the !@#$% thing called a quarterstaff in the first place?

Given that a human fighting one handed applys about half his total power (if it were otherwise, two handed axes would not be more effective than one handed), and assuming that the average human weights in at 180 to 190 lbs (fighters are not body builders, and most of our military meet this standard unless they work out. also remember that members of Asian cultures tend to weight less, and still maintain the same power output), why is a halfling weighting in at roughly 60 to 70 lbs (I believe) doing less two handed? This little folks do use heavy (by their standards) tools to manipulate the same environment humans live in (cutting trees, dovetailing the wood, etc.).

You have seen a power output comparison somewhere? As I read the Knight vs. Samuri comparison all the way through, this is something I would be interested in. Asian cultures also don't tend to have the same level of armor protection as european ones. I have heard no claim of a asian culture producing armor of the protective quality of a suit of full plate armor found in europe. It seems to follow that the same need for power was not there. (probably going to regret saying that...) Consider that a katana is a slashing weapon with a keen edge and that a arming sword (longsword) is a cleaving weapon with a chisel like edge.

As far as weight goes, halflings average 32 lbs in 3.X D&D. Gnomes and goblins are only slightly heavier, averaging 42 lbs. Essentially, you have someone 1/2 the height and 1/6 the weight of your average human fighter. Puts that -2 Str and 3/4 capacity in perspective, don't it? I would expect to find at least 2 if not 3 'little folk' doing the work that 1 human might. For example, 2 halflings using a tandum saw where 1 human with an axe would do the same work.

 

[Storyteller01]

Out of curiousity, what diameter of quarter staff are you used to, and why is the !@#$% thing called a quarterstaff in the first place?

You have seen a power output comparison somewhere? As I read the Knight vs. Samuri comparison all the way through, this is something I would be interested in. Asian cultures also don't tend to have the same level of armor protection as european ones. I have heard no claim of a asian culture producing armor of the protective quality of a suit of full plate armor found in europe. It seems to follow that the same need for power was not there. (probably going to regret saying that...) Consider that a katana is a slashing weapon with a keen edge and that a arming sword (longsword) is a cleaving weapon with a chisel like edge.

As far as weight goes, halflings average 32 lbs in 3.X D&D. Gnomes and goblins are only slightly heavier, averaging 42 lbs. Essentially, you have someone 1/2 the height and 1/6 the weight of your average human fighter. Puts that -2 Str and 3/4 capacity in perspective, don't it? I would expect to find at least 2 if not 3 'little folk' doing the work that 1 human might. For example, 2 halflings using a tandum saw where 1 human with an axe would do the same work.

Between an inch to 1 1/2", depending on the maker, wood used, etc. japanese white oak works well. As for the name, couldn't tell ya!

As for power output (more anecdotal stuff), have a friend who's working on a masters in cultural anthropolgy, with a focus on weapons developement and function. Per him, japan didn't develope the armor because 1)steel was at a premium, and 2) the weather was not conductive to that type of dress. You'd be dead from heat stroke in a matter of minutes if you wore that armor during the summer, especially in the heat of battle. reportedly, some wore silk under armor to give protection against arrows. Something about the fibers prevented penetration. haven't talked to him in a while, so I can't say much on other Asian cultures, but I would imagine a similar situation given the documented weather during the Vietnam conflict.

They did use the laquered wood and steel plates (the steel was folded in the same manner as the katana, but not as often) for this reason. Also remember the different fighting styles, and the fact that European battle tactics started moving towards mobility over protection before the advent of the gun. Armor was getting too easy to penetrate.

On the other side, Europen weaponry tended to develope with the need for penetrating said armor. Tended toward either peircing or bashing (hammers and axes generally had a pick or claw on the other end, and even the swords possessed a straighter blade).

Factiod for you: the katana actually has a harder time pentrating leather and some woods. Same goes for the folded steel. Has something to do with the way the organic fibers cross randomly, rather than going with a particular grain (same reason why an axe works best when cutting with the grain). Japan didn't wear much armor, but what they did wear was effective for their combat environment. This tends to add to the need for greater power.

Also, a slicing weapon requires that you power through muscle and bone to hit a vital area. Not an easy task (the practice with the bamboo was used because bamboo naturally has a density consistent with human bone). Both weapons require the neccesary power AFTER they pentrate the protection. Both styles tended towrd aiming at vulnerable areas (japanese actually have a technique that flips the armored 'skirt' up, nailing the femorial artery in the same motion).

I can understand the need for decreased damage (mass does count for something, even if not as much as velocity), but give that human cultures start teaching weapons use by age five, and start seeing effective use at age 13 (roughly the same strength as said small races, and hands still have a bit of growing to do. Miamato Musashi [butchered the spelling] reportedly killed in his first duel at age 13.). Given, halflings and gnomes aren't the size of a 13 year old, but strength is comparable.

There was a power study on kendo students. I think they sadi that said students were putting something close to a 1/2 ton in power through their rear foot, but I could be mistaken. (damn good, given that its the leg/body surge that provides the greatest power, and said students tend to weigh in at 150 to 180).

 

[TheEvil]

But you get where I am coming from?

 

[Storyteller01]

But you get where I am coming from?

Not really, both weapon are using the same relative power when striking gaps in armors. A twelve year old can also do this (and have, with adult weapons, lack of comparative experience and developement not withstanding).

Using myself as an example, my upward limit for grip width is 3". Lowest is about 1/2" to 1/4", depending on weapon function or use. Anything beyond those is too confortable for use. Anything within that range is fair game. Given that a 3 year old can grip and handle objects within a 1" range, I can't imageine small races having much smaller of a range.

 

[Lamoni]

Storyteller, You said that your personal range for a grip is between 1/4" to 3". Lower than that and higher than that are too uncomfortable. Does that mean that anything within that range gives you no penalty (you can fight just as effectively) and anything outside that range gives a huge penalty (it becomes unusable)? Or would it be something more gradual? A weapon with a grip normally 2" might be a little harder to use as it grows to 2.5" (but still quite effective), worse at 3" and finally almost not worth the effort at 3.5"... which could probably be represented with a -2, -4, and -6 penalties.

It still seems to me that you are saying that if you can still use the weapon effectively that there should be zero penalty. Do you also disagree with masterwork weapons? A masterwork weapon is most likely much more like a normal weapon of its type than the same weapon made for a larger or smaller race. So you switch weapons from a masterwork to one with the same material, grip, length, weight, but maybe the balance is off by 1/30" This gives you a -1 to hit. This doesn't make sense since the weapon should still be very effective.

Oh wait, the weapon IS still effective. It still does the same damage. Taking a -2 penalty does not mean unusable. The barbarian in our party has a +17 to hit. They could easily pick up a large longsword and use it quite effectively. If the barbarian was a halfling, they could still use a large creature's shortsword as a greatsword and still have a +14 to hit (added +1 due to being small).

Have you tried wielding a longsword with a 1/4" grip? How about a quarterstaff with a 3" grip? You may be comfortable with that range, but I would guess that the optimal range is quite a bit smaller for any single weapon. All your anecdotal stories about small people effectively wielding different weapons doesn't prove that they didn't just effectively wield them at a -2 penalty. Again, -2 doesn't mean ineffective. Someone with more dexterity or strength at the same level (training) can still have a greater attack bonus with an inproper sized weapon than someone with less dex or strength and a masterwork weapon. The person and the training (level) still have more effect than any weapon size penalty.

One last thing. Sorry to repeat myself, but I don't know how often this comes up in your games. PC's buy weapons properly sized for them and they fight with those weapons. If I am a halfling, I won't be buying large sized weapons. If I am an ogre, I will.

 

[TheEvil]

Not really, both weapon are using the same relative power when striking gaps in armors. A twelve year old can also do this (and have, with adult weapons, lack of comparative experience and developement not withstanding).

As I have noted several times, halflings are NOT the size of 12 year olds. They are the size of 3 year olds. From a google search, mean hand length of a 3 year old is about 10.5 cm, 12 year old 16.3, 18 year old 18.4. As a disclaimer, this was the first site I found that gave such data, so feel free to look for data that substantually disagrees.

As you can see, the difference between 3 and adult is rather larger then from 12 and adult. Between 12 and adult, the lack of experience and developement have far more impact then hand size. At this point, I have shown you that the height, weight and hand size of 12 year olds is closer to adult human then to halflings, so please drop the 12 year olds from your reasons why small creatures shouldn't do less damage.

Using myself as an example, my upward limit for grip width is 3". Lowest is about 1/2" to 1/4", depending on weapon function or use. Anything beyond those is too confortable for use. Anything within that range is fair game. Given that a 3 year old can grip and handle objects within a 1" range, I can't imageine small races having much smaller of a range.

Well, that seems to pretty much put a cap on things.

First off, something that should have been said a LONG time ago on this thread: Drop martial arts from this whole discussion. Just because a trained martial artist swings a baton a certain way doesn't mean this is the way the vast majority of people use clubs. Eastern martial arts techniques were developed to allow lightly armed and unarmored peasants to fight armed and armored soldiers. For whatever reason, peasants didn't develope these skills in the historical western setting D&D seems to be based on. You also can't compare the martial artists' baton strike to their quarterstaff strike, as your training has no doubt shown you that these two swings use different techniques. Finally, one bit of advice given to children with martial arts training is to NEVER, EVER try to fight an adult if you can run away. You will lose far more often then you win. Even if you are a black belt. This is also this advice given to adults facing someone who is armed. Every martial arts instructors I have known has advocated running away from an armed opponent whenever possible. Even if all they had was a knife.
There, I feel better now.

Now to get on with it:
If you really believe that specialized martial arts techniques are widely used by D&D characters, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise (beating dead horse to prove a point here).
If you really believe a traditional sword swing from someone 1/2 the height and 1/6 the weight has just as much force as a full sized adult, nothing I say will convince you otherwise.
If you honestly think that griping and handling something is the same as being able to wield it in combat, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise.
If you honestly believe that you are just as fast, accurate and hard to disarm with a weapon with a 1/2" grip as you are with that same weapon with a 1" grip or a 3" grip, nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

I many others have tried to show you through various examples and physical statistics (height, weight, etc..) how the D&D system of weapon damage based on size is reasonable. Furthermore, we have shown how it actually hasn't changed the damage that creatures do with with similarly sized weapons, except in very few cases. Through all of this I have tried to be patient and respectful. I wish I could say I had succeeded more thoroughly. It doesn't seem that you have any room in your mind for doubt, or to be convinced that what you think is wrong. You may well think the same of me and of everyone who disagreed with you. Certainly, I would not argue with your right to do so. I am going to cease posting on this thread before I say something that crosses the line. I do reserve the right to rebutt any reply you may make, but am unlikely to say any more on threads topic directly.

I look forward to chatting on other posts.

Good gaming!

 

[JDJarvis]

But a shortsword is basically a large dagger, with the same balance and use when you compare the mass.

i know this is days old but i can't help myself.

A shortsword is not basically a large dagger with the same balance and use when you compare mass. There are strikes one can use with a shortsword that are not done with a dagger, even a long one. There is an twisting overhand strike that relies on the mass of the weapon and the arm driving it that is not done with a dagger. Hardly the only difference but one i'm aware of. Different weapons are designed for different uses.

I have fought/practiced for hundreds of hours with a sword and then one day found myself using a blade but 4" shorter and the differences were amazing and surprising to me. I adapted to the point i wasn't screwing up constantly in a couple of hours but i still wasn't as good as i would have been with my regular sword. Different sized wepons are designed for different styles of fighting.

 

[TheEvil]

Save yourself!

Turn back before it's too late!

I was like you once...