Small Weapons?

[Storyteller01]

A Small baton, on the other hand, would do 1d4.

-Hyp.

Funny thing: someone actually made a small baton for humans (probably closer to Diminutive)!! It's called a Kubaton, used in police forces the world over! Not much for striking, but great for manipulating pressure points (subdual damage/pain compliance).

Why would a human gain a negative for using a 2' long, 1" thick stick if we created a weapon 6 inches long by a 1/4 inch to a 1/2 inch thick (9 to 10 inches in length if you add some key rings and keys [a very effective flail, with a handle about 1/2" thick])?

There are also small versions of extendable batons. They are also about 2' long and are just as effective as standard batons. So why the reduction in damage potential?

Again, I'm not trying to be snarky. I just have a hard time justifying these changes with this kind of info.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why would a human gain a negative for using a 2' long, 1" thick stick if we created a weapon 6 inches long by a 1/4 inch to a 1/2 inch thick (9 to 10 inches in length if you add some key rings and keys [a very effective flail, with a handle about 1/2" thick])?

If one's Small, and the other's Medium, they get a -2 with the Small one.

There are also small versions of extendable batons. They are also about 2' long and are just as effective as standard batons. So why the reduction in damage potential?

If they were designed for a Medium creature, they aren't Small.

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

If one's Small, and the other's Medium, they get a -2 with the Small one.



If they were designed for a Medium creature, they aren't Small.

-Hyp.

BUT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE!
Both are 2 feet long, one inch thick sticks! One is a 2' baton made by humans, the other is a 2' wooden stick made by halflings or some other small race. Why is there a difference in damage potential, and why is one race getting nailed with a penalty for the exact same weapon.

 

[Pbartender]

Allow me to make a very simplistic arguement here...

Do you allow halflings to gain a +2 shield bonus to their AC while still retaining the use of their off-hands, when using human-sized bucklers?

Or to be a little more ridiculous; do you allow halflings to get all the benefits of full chain mail (but none of the penaties) when wearing a human-sized chain shirt?

If not, then why are you not using the 3.5 weapon size rules for consistancy?

 

[Storyteller01]

Allow me to make a very simplistic arguement here...

Do you allow halflings to gain a +2 shield bonus to their AC while still retaining the use of their off-hands, when using human-sized bucklers?

Or to be a little more ridiculous; do you allow halflings to get all the benefits of full chain mail (but none of the penaties) when wearing a human-sized chain shirt?

If not, then why are you not using the 3.5 weapon size rules for consistancy?

Of course not, but if said halfling were using a human buckler, they could expect some type of cover bonus (without the use of their off-hand), and I wouldn't allow either race, human or halfling, to wear armor without the preper penalties. All rulings would be applied consistently.

Also remember that armor doesn't have the sizing flexibility that weapons do. A poisoned needle doesn't have to cleave a target in half to be effective, nor does a dagger between the ribs. If you don't want to get hit with either weapon, you need to cover the whole body. You can't apply the same consistency to both subjects (get stuck with a dagger ebough times and you will evenually die. You can't hide behind a small buckler forever).

I'm sorry, but I do have to ask again: What is the difference between a 3' long 1" thick Small quarterstaff and a 3' long 1" thick Medium club?

 

[Pbartender]

I'm sorry, but I do have to ask again: What is the difference between a 3' long 1" thick Small quarterstaff and a 3' long 1" thick Medium club?

The difference is that it is an exceptional example, as the only weapon on the list that actually scales appropriately with the size of the combatant.

But to be a little less snarky...

The difference is how they use the weapon.

So long as the halfling uses it as a double weapon dealing 1d4 damage, and the human weilds it as a one-handed weapon dealgin 1d6 damage, there's no problem.

If the halfling tries to use his quarterstaff as a club, he deals 1d6 damage, and takes a -2 penalty to attack.

If the human tries to use his club like a quarterstaff, then he can make two attacks each of which deals 1d4 damage, and he takes a -2 penatly to attack in addition to the normal penaties for two-weapon fighting.

 

[Storyteller01]

The difference is that it is an exceptional example, as the only weapon on the list that actually scales appropriately with the size of the combatant.

Not being snarky, but...

I would have to disagree. A dagger possesses a 1' straight (or marginaly so) blade with a 4" to 6" long, 1" thick handle. The weight of the blade will be closest to the handle to facilitate thrusts and manipulation (unless it is a type of thrown knife).

If we use Pbartender's reasoning from the example above with the quarterstaff/club, then both a halfling and human can manipulate a 1" thick object equally well.

A small shortswort would also possess a 1' straight blade and a handle roughly an inch thick
and 4 inches long. A larger or smaller blade would increase or decrease the damage respectively. Since the length and width of the grip help offset the blades weight (and not just the pommel, since katana don't have pommels), and the two objects weight roughly the same, I would assume that the handle has roughly the same proportions. It's weight will also be closest to the hilt, and for the same reasons. A slimmer handle may require a lengthening of the handle to offset the weight of the blade.

It has already been established that a human can use a weapon whose handle is 1/4 inches thick, so arguing that a small shortsword would have a slimmer grip would not change the situation.

Why would a human or halfing have a problem using either of these weapons?

 

[Storyteller01]

The difference is how they use the weapon.

So long as the halfling uses it as a double weapon dealing 1d4 damage, and the human weilds it as a one-handed weapon dealgin 1d6 damage, there's no problem.

If the halfling tries to use his quarterstaff as a club, he deals 1d6 damage, and takes a -2 penalty to attack.

If the human tries to use his club like a quarterstaff, then he can make two attacks each of which deals 1d4 damage, and he takes a -2 penatly to attack in addition to the normal penaties for two-weapon fighting.

But I don't understand this...

If a human wizard uses their quarterstaff w/o the double weapon benefit, their damage potential does not decrease (they still do 1d6 on a strike). A human using a club is doing roughly the same thing they would do with a quarter staff (pokes, bashes, etc). They don't have the option of a second attack, but do the same damage.

If the weapon is the same size, width, strength, material, etc. and both races are roughly the same strength on average (a difference of -1 to hiut and damage), then why is the stick doing less damage between races? It is not constructed any differently, and the size of the striking surface has not changed overall (the outer 4 inches, unless they thrust)...

Also, given that a halfling wizard will not be using his quarter staff to gain an extar attack, he will most likely be using it in a single two handed weapon attack. Why is a halfling only gaining 1d4 damage with such an attack, when a human with the exact same weapon gains a 1d6 when using just one hand?

I'm not trying to be snarky, but I honestly don't see the difference.

 

[Bauglir]

Also, given that a halfling wizard will not be using his quarter staff to gain an extar attack, he will most likely be using it in a single two handed weapon attack. Why is a halfling only gaining 1d4 damage with such an attack, when a human with the exact same weapon gains a 1d6 when using just one hand?

If a human wields a medium sized club, they deal 1d6 damage with it.
If a halfling wields the exact same weapon (2-handed) they deal 1d6 damage with it, but suffer a -2 to hit, I would imagine because the 'hilt' is a little too big for their little hands, making it awkward (but not impossible - it's only -2) to use.

Now the halfling could get out a chisel and work on the hilt so it fits his hand better. However, when he's finished it would be awkward for the human to use properly. It's now a small Greatclub, rather than a medium club.

 

[Storyteller01]

If a human wields a medium sized club, they deal 1d6 damage with it.
If a halfling wields the exact same weapon (2-handed) they deal 1d6 damage with it, but suffer a -2 to hit, I would imagine because the 'hilt' is a little too big for their little hands, making it awkward (but not impossible - it's only -2) to use.

Now the halfling could get out a chisel and work on the hilt so it fits his hand better. However, when he's finished it would be awkward for the human to use properly. It's now a small Greatclub, rather than a medium club.

But we're talking (typing) about small quarterstaff vs a medium baton or club. Both items are a 3 foot long, one inch thick piece of wood (operating on the premis that a quarter staff is a double club, comparable to a double- sword or axe). Why, if it is a club, does a halfling take a -2 to hit if they use it as a quarterstaff. Or conversly, if it was carved by a halfling, why does a human take a -2 to hit if they use it as a club?

Each race may have their own version of various weapons, but one rule still applies: physical laws (since magic isn't involved yet) apply to all objects equally. If a stick is the same weight, composition, etc, and those using it are the same strength on average (again, the difference is a -1 to hit and damage. A human and a halfling with the same strength will gain the same bonuses to hit and damage.) why is a human with one hand doing a whole die more damage than a halfling using two hands?