Small Weapons?

[Ranger REG]

Agreed, but why would they fashion small equivalent of human weapons

Who said they are human weapons?

We just use the human terms for describing such weapon of their size-scale and culture. They may have a different term or names for their weapons based on their culture and their own physiology. Small folks aren't necessarily mini versions of humans. They're their own species.

Besides, how are we going to allow a Titan sorcerers to use a dagger which is one of their starting weapon proficiencies? To them, a greatsword is considered a dagger in their hands, yet it is not listed in the wizard class. Now we have to go and do another rules explanation. Or worse, create greatdagger stats.

Anyhoo, notice the function of each weapon. For example, in 3.0e, a longsword in the hand of a human or medium-sized creature would emphasize the weapon's slashing capability(primary function of the weapon), while a shortsword we would emphasize its piercing capability. Small folks using a shortsword can't fight using slashing-style technique, even though it would be their equivalent of a longsword.

In 3.5e, Small folks can use small longsword as a slashing weapon because it was designed for their size and capabilities.

I don't mean to sound literal, but that's how a rules lawyer would see it, the letter of the rules. In this case, Small folks can have a one-handed slashing weapon, just as humanfolks can.

 

[Storyteller01]

We just use the human terms for describing such weapon of their size-scale and culture. They may have a different term or names for their weapons based on their culture and their own physiology. Small folks aren't necessarily mini versions of humans. They're their own species. ...

Anyhoo, notice the function of each weapon. For example, in 3.0e, a longsword in the hand of a human or medium-sized creature would emphasize the weapon's slashing capability(primary function of the weapon), while a shortsword we would emphasize its piercing capability. Small folks using a shortsword can't fight using slashing-style technique, even though it would be their equivalent of a longsword.

In 3.5e, Small folks can use small longsword as a slashing weapon because it was designed for their size and capabilities.

I don't mean to sound literal, but that's how a rules lawyer would see it, the letter of the rules. In this case, Small folks can have a one-handed slashing weapon, just as humanfolks can.

agreed, which is why I don't understand why a halfling or gnome would do 1d4 with a club/small quarterstaff, given that their strength is roughly equivalent to humans. Pretty good, given that they are beween 2 and 4 foot tall (that would be one of the difference in species, at least IMHO).

Guess my point is that there ios such a thing as too many rules.

as for how the weapons damage is descibed...well...that's another thread.

 

[Storyteller01]

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.

Agreed . Cultural and situational factors conspired to create weapons that could overcome the odds. A specific style of rapier had been designed to take advantage of the weak design of a specific armor (I don't remember the names, but the armor had a seam in the breast plate that the rapier punctures easily). When the armor was improved, that style of rapier fell into disuse on the battlefield. But the overall weapons that have successfully survived to see service today (katana's, bayonets, bowie knives, etc) are effective in both types of styles. Not trying to argue, just set the stage so to speak. Even mayasian military personnel are trained to thrust with a kukri. I hope you agree with me on this.

 

[CRGreathouse]

agreed, which is why I don't understand why a halfling or gnome would do 1d4 with a club/small quarterstaff, given that their strength is roughly equivalent to humans. Pretty good, given that they are beween 2 and 4 foot tall (that would be one of the difference in species, at least IMHO).

as for how the weapons damage is descibed...well...that's another thread.

A human who can lift 100 pounds over his/her head deals 1d6 points with a club or quarterstaff. A halfling with the ability to lift the same amount would deal 1d4+1 points of damage.

 

[Storyteller01]

A human who can lift 100 pounds over his/her head deals 1d6 points with a club or quarterstaff. A halfling with the ability to lift the same amount would deal 1d4+1 points of damage.

So a halfling can do more minimal damage, but cannot achieve the same maximum damage using a weapon with the same size striking surface, and applying a greater amount of power? Especially given that the halfling is lifting the same amount of weight with significantly less leverage?

Lifting mass and damaging with a weapon are not the same, given that the smaller race has half the surface area to lift with. Which supports more weight, the sneaker or the 6 inch heel? Why can't a Rotweiller lift 200 lbs if they can bring down a 200 lbs man?

Better example, why could Bruce Lee knock a man back 6 feet with a one inch punch, but larger boxers cannot. Or, how can a a 60 year old Thai Chi master cave in a man's chest with an open handed slap, but the larger, stronger opponent could not. We can claim specialized training, but I'd have to wonder why a small critter capable of the same burst in power cannot do the same.

Heck (the last one, promise) how can a chimpanzee, roughly the same size as said halfling or gnome heightwise, be capable of ripping a man apart barehanded. They aren't heavier than humans, so they don't have a greater muscle mass. Near as I can tell (I may be wrong) they don't outlift humans (outpull is another story...).

Have to ask again: if a club and a small quarter have the same size, width, materials, strength, etc, why is a small creature that can generate the same amount of power in a single instance (hence the equivalent damage increase for both races) doing less damage with the same sized weapon, or a larger creature that uses identical weapons taking a penalty to hit.

Not asking for the rules definition, I'm asking you all to explain the reasoning behind the rules.

 

[CRGreathouse]

So a halfling can do more minimal damage, but cannot achieve the same maximum damage using a weapon with the same size striking surface, and applying a greater amount of power? Especially given that the halfling is lifting the same amount of weight with significantly less leverage?

I think it's more relevant that they deal the same average damage.

 

[Storyteller01]

I think it's more relevant that they deal the same average damage.

Why? the stronger halfling is capable of genrating more short term power. May not be able to lift the same amount, but that's no reason why he can't do the same damage die with the same weapon. If the end of a 1 lbs stick is travelling x mph, it will do the same damage regardless of who it was made for.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not asking for the rules definition, I'm asking you all to explain the reasoning behind the rules.

Is it important?

The rule is clear.

If you choose to house rule it, that's between you and your players.

But it's absolutely unambiguous that a Small quarterstaff deals 1d4 damage.

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

Is it important?

The rule is clear.

If you choose to house rule it, that's between you and your players.

But it's absolutely unambiguous that a Small quarterstaff deals 1d4 damage.

-Hyp.

But it doesn't explain why, since a small quarterstaff and a club are thwe exact same weapon. And if this is the case with the small quarterstaff, then (if a halfling or gnome can manipulate a 1" thick object, regardless of the damage for the moment) what othetr weapons can this apply to? Why enforce a 'realistic' ruling if it can be proven otherwise?

 

[Meeki]

If we are taking it out of D&D terms then we have to look at what strength is. A 10 strength human and a 12 strength halfing may both be able to lift the 100 lbs over their head but they aren't using only their arms. Legs and back go into it. The halfling is not going to have nearly the same amount of muscle mass in their arms as the human does. Thus the reasoning for reduced carrying capacity. Also an explanation for the reduced damage die. Halfings have reduced wait on top of that meaning less force behing their blows. If you have ever wielded a sword or club then you know your body mass impacts the strength of your blows.