Small Weapons?

[TheLostSoul]

Not intentionally, no. WHat I'm saying is that all the stats are unnessecary. A longsword can do both slashing and piecing damage.

This is not completely true. The celtic La Tené sword, for exampel, was a slashing only longsword. It had an almost straight point. Most early shortswords were also primarily piercing blades. They could be used for slashing moves, but they are not very good at it. This is due to the fightingstyle involved (they were primarily a secondary weapon). In general though, your assumption does hold some truth.

 

[IcyCool]

Not to insult others, but all I've seen is mechanics for answers, ...
...
My point: Why all the arguements saying'this mechanic operates this way or that".

Because this thread is in the "Rules" forum. We discuss the mechanics, and only rarely are we foolish enough to try and apply "logic" and "realism" to the rules.

 

[Sheng Long Gradilla]

Let me give another anecdotal example. We had an 11 year old come into Iaido. Katanas (longsword) were too large for him to draw and use effectively. The instructors solution: give him a wakizashi (shortsword). He used it as a two handed weapon, learning katana techniques, and learnig them well. There was no change in skill level when because, as he grew older, he had to get used to a larger weapon. He applied the same principles equally.

That was the smartest and cheapest solution at hand. Commissioning a katana is no cheap business, besides, there are no katana for children. By definition, the edge section of a katana measures at least 2 shaku (almost 2 feet).

You can argue that said 11 year old is not the size of a halfling, but the point is that he used a short weapon in the same manner as is larger equivalent. There are also other exmaples of adults using European shortswords to teach longsword techniques to young children. They didn't use specially made weapons, mainly because they could not afford to waste the steel. There is a reason why the weapons are named 'long' and 'short' swords.

This goes beside the point. The point of the argument is whether a warrior with a certain weapon is exactly as effective as he would be with a weapon of similar size which was designed for a considerably larger subject, or if there is a small difference that is not always easy to appreciate. Your anecdotal example does not prove anything.

 

[Storyteller01]

That was the smartest and cheapest solution at hand. Commissioning a katana is no cheap business, besides, there are no katana for children. By definition, the edge section of a katana measures at least 2 shaku (almost 2 feet).



This goes beside the point. The point of the argument is whether a warrior with a certain weapon is exactly as effective as he would be with a weapon of similar size which was designed for a considerably larger subject, or if there is a small difference that is not always easy to appreciate. Your anecdotal example does not prove anything.

Actually, the qeustion was why are goblins being docked on damage for new rules, since their weapons are being retrofitted for their size. The example is going from short sword made for a human to a shortsword made for a goblin. The anecdote has some merit, since it shows a smaller person using a small weapon (short sword) effective as its larger equivalent.

Had said 11 year old been training for a nodachi, the katana would be used for his size.

 

[TheEvil]

Actually, the qeustion was why are goblins being docked on damage for new rules, since their weapons are being retrofitted for their size. The example is going from short sword made for a human to a shortsword made for a goblin. The anecdote has some merit, since it shows a smaller person using a small weapon (short sword) effective as its larger equivalent.

Just to bring this full circle:
All anecdotes and examples aside, it makes sense that a smaller weapon does less damage then a larger one. It follows that since goblin short swords are built for someone ~4 feet tall it does less damage then one built for someone ~6 feet tall.

 

[Ranger REG]

AFAIC, Small folks will craft weapons appropriate for their size, not the size of humans, just as human weaponsmith would craft weapon appropriate for humans, not for ogres.

 

[Storyteller01]

Because this thread is in the "Rules" forum. We discuss the mechanics, and only rarely are we foolish enough to try and apply "logic" and "realism" to the rules.

Agreed.

 

[Storyteller01]

Just to bring this full circle:
All anecdotes and examples aside, it makes sense that a smaller weapon does less damage then a larger one. It follows that since goblin short swords are built for someone ~4 feet tall it does less damage then one built for someone ~6 feet tall.

I'm not questioning the difference in size vs damage.

Question is, since a small creature can you a smaller weapon as its larger equivalent (if you take anecdotes into account), and goblins have a reputation as scavengers, lacking the skills and resources to forge such weapons, wouldn't it be correct in assuming that said goblins obtained shortswords from battlefields or ambushes? And also given the homesteading lifestyle of halflings and gnomes (both cultural notes are overall observations from the core rules and articles from Dragon magazine), wouldn't it seem likely that such weapons are manufactured for Medium creatures?

 

[argo]

Actually, the qeustion was why are goblins being docked on damage for new rules, since their weapons are being retrofitted for their size. The example is going from short sword made for a human to a shortsword made for a goblin. The anecdote has some merit, since it shows a smaller person using a small weapon (short sword) effective as its larger equivalent.

Had said 11 year old been training for a nodachi, the katana would be used for his size.

I know that this point has been made already but I don't think it has stuck so I'll say it again: this is the result of a mistake made in converting creature stats from 3.0 to 3.5, it is not a problem with the 3.5 ruleset.

Those 3.0 goblins were using the human-sized shortsword as a longsword with respect to them, not as a shortsword (a goblin-shortsword in 3.0 would have been a dagger). Whomever did the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion either didn't understand the rules or was too hasty because the correct conversion would have been to give them a small longsword. They would have gone from a 1d6 piercing weapon (3.0 shortsword) to a 1d6 slashing weapon (3.5 short longsword). 3.5 goblins are not being docked on damage, the conversion was mistaken!

Hope that helps.

 

[Storyteller01]

AFAIC, Small folks will craft weapons appropriate for their size, not the size of humans, just as human weaponsmith would craft weapon appropriate for humans, not for ogres.

Agreed, but why would they fashion small equivalent of human weapons when 1)using said weapons puts them at a disadvantage, being designed for human size and weight and given the dominance of the larger races (unless you have mongul halflings in your campaign ), and 2) when said weapons will be nearly identical to human weapons of the same size. The handles may be an inch smaller in length, and the weapon balance would be no different from knives, daggers, clubs, and other tools (given that we are not applying magic to the senario, these objects would all operate around the same physics). Also note that humans have made and use weapons with handles less than an inch in thickness. This thick is as much for comfort as it is for reinforcing the tang in said handle.

As I mentioned earlier, their are stiletto style blades with handles no more than 1/2" x 3/8" and 4" long, wielded by humans. Said stiletto weights less an a pound. Would a small race suffer a -2 for using this weapon, simply because it isn't weighted for them? Also note that this is not an unusual design.

Got another question for ya! I haven't fully perused 3.5 yet, so:
Does a small quarterstaff do a d4 in damage? If so, why? A quarter staff is effectively a double club, working on similar lines as the double sword and double axe. A small quarterstaff would be roughly 3-4 feet in length.

This is the same as a club! Why the rediuction in possible damage? We can argue that a club has a thick meaty end or that a small quarterstaff is not as thick, but remember that police butons are roughly an inch thick, and the older variants were made of wood. Also, if a either is made much thinner, tney would break. The ASP's are generally smaller in diameter, but the bulb of metal at the tip makes up for this. Also remember that martail arts clubs are roughly an inch in diameter. These weapons, both before and after 3.0/3.5 were given club statistics in various publications. So why the reduction in damage?