TheEvil
Explorer
No matter how well proven, virtually nothing is without minority disagreement. If you want to call that debate…ashfallen said:OK, so the physics of weapon sizing are somewhat debatable.
Storyteller01 said:...And given that a human can wield a knife with a 3" handle without penalty in combat, both in real life and by the RAW (since it was made for a Medium critter). If I inturrpret the arguments correctly, a human using this style of pocket knife would not accrue a penalty, provided he is proficient with simple weapons, and it was made for a Medium creature.
Don't forget, you left out half of that paragraph. The above I added to help further my arguement.
Snipped but not forgotten...
That would be because you went ahead and used most of the same arguments you had used all along. I only responded to the part that was new, and I felt reflected why you were unwilling to change your opinion.
Now I will go ahead and rebut some of your claims:
A pocket knife with a 3" handle has a blade length no longer then 3". How much damage are you expecting to do with this 'weapon'? Your average pocket knife also has nothing to keep your hand from sliding up the blade during a thrust. Realistically, it will be unable to penetrate armor. I would expect at least a -2 penalty for using such a 'weapon'.
Beating a horse, the health of may be subject to 'debate' but the horse is well beaten:
Just because something is used in a fight doesn’t mean a proper weapon wouldn’t have worked better. Bar fights and domestic violence are notorious for use of improvised weapons. CITING THEM DOESN’T MAKE THE WEAPONS USED IN THEM ‘GOOD’ WEAPONS.
A stiletto is a specialized stabbing weapon. A halfling will have difficulty using a human-sized stiletto the same way a human would. Now add to that that a halfling is half the height and 1/6th the mass. They are not going to use it as effectively. This sums up a lot of the –2 penalty: A small creature doesn’t use the weapon the way it was designed.
While on the subject of specific weapons, you have complained long and loud that a human does 1d6 with a piece of wood that a halfling only does d4 with. Does it bother you that a human only does d6 with a quarterstaff?
A masterwork weapon in D&D takes about 8 days to make, or about 64 man-hours, where you are getting hundreds of man-hours?
The physics of throwing a weapon and swinging a weapon are rather different. Would you really allow a halfling to throw a small shortsword without penalty? If not, why would you allow them to throw a medium dagger without one?
Storyteller, so far you have used martial arts, the outside ends of the variability spectrum and a lot of questionable anecdotes and examples to justify why there shouldn’t be a lower damage die or a –2 to hit for small characters. Majority opinion stands against you. I will grant you that I don’t always let that change my opinion, but I do usually take the time to reexamine my stance. This seems to be something that you are wholly unwilling to do. Just say that you are using the weapon equivalency optional rule because you prefer it and get over it already. Why do you need to believe that reality on your side? Why must your view be the ‘right’ one? If you prefer that humans be able to use a giant’s longsword as a greatsword because you feel it is more heroic, dramatic, simpler, and makes finding magic weapons easier, you will not find many people who complain (assuming you are the GM). Don’t pretend that it eliminates the silliness and lack of realism in the D&D weapon system. No weapon classification system used in the entire history of the D&D game has ever been realistic or without silly situations. NONE. Enough people seem to think that 3.5 does a better job of it then 3.0 to go ahead and use the system. Accept the fact that you are in the minority (or revel in it if you prefer).
On a side note, it occurs to me that this thread really should be in the General forum, since the rules on the matter are pretty straight forward.
