Here is where it would be better if they gave NO benefit to small creatures. As stated, a MEDIUM creature CANNOT (in any manner) use a LARGE weapon -- not even a versatile one. SMALL creatures are given the ADVANTAGE of being able to use SOME medium weapons.
There are no Small sized weapons in 4th edition. PHB explicitly states that small and medium creatures use the same size weapons. Hence the lack of vorpal small-weapon insanity.
Correct - I note you skipped the portion where I said it just made it easier. Also, a prior post that showed that as written the current method can be used as an approximate for a duplicated (and translated for the weapons and size chart) one small characters.
Way to miss the point. Joe Halfling wields a 40" saber in one hand. He deals the same damage as Jane Human wielding the same saber in one hand with the same STR score.
Joe Halfling now switches to using a longsword with two hands. So does Jane Human. In spite of the fact that they are still using the exact same weapon in the exact same manner, Jane now deals 1 point more damage. That is an oddity.
Agreed - you did miss the point. I even showed which points you missed. Small creatures are using roughly translated weapons (again for simplicity). What you are missing is the concept of an extra hand on a one-handed weapon. Versatile weapons are NOT one-handed weapons to a halfling. Their large size makes them equivalent to small 2 handed weapons.
Why? Looking for a large whip, by any chance? Some weapons don't scale up well.
Correct - and the simple solution was for them to add a "small" tag.
OK, so here's where I go all numbers on your butt, because you're talking out of it right now. (and most of the rest of this)
Wow - and people claimed *I* was being simulationist? I spoke from the existing rules - "weapons and size". That single rule is what continues to stand in the way. I've mentioned before the only way to get around it. However, as someone said previously - you're following standard practice for the forums.
First, you have your length off as far as a typical greatsword. 6' long (total) is as long as the weapon gets IRL. Like the longsword, however, the D&D length is not quite the same. The one on PHB 220 has the same blade length as the rapier next to it, and is overall only a couple inches longer. It's a thicker-bladed weapon than the German Zweihanders (lit: "Two hander") that would get that long - it's more like a claymore (lit: "Great Sword"), perhaps 54" from pommel to tip in typical length.
first - as Max pointed out - going by the artistry is plain folly. Second - thank you for demonstrating that the largest of swords is typically no longer than the wielder's height. This is what I referred to when I mentioned scaling.
Second, you have your "typical" sizes off. Mean human height in D&D: 70" 168 lb. Mean halfling height: 48" 80 lb. In other words, 68% of the height.
Yes - I used nice easy numbers, however - if you want the more exacting. I'll refer to my spacing post much earlier (which used the proper proportion) and state that you are easily on a path to prove my point.
Third, your physics is ****ed. What matters in the ability of a halfling to swing a sword two-handed is to apply a torque on the handle. In this event, the only quantity that matters in maneuvering the blade is your ability to apply force at a point. The square-cube ratio favors the halflings heavily, you'll note halflings are half, not a third, of the mass of humans, meaning they have 1.48x the cross-sectional density, meaning that instead of 57% of the muscular cross-sectional area, they have 84% of the muscular cross-sectional area.
You missed a significant portion of the torque equation. The length of the lever arm. Which, in this case, is increased by the same factor - again, keeping the reach = 1/3 height that the game uses. Since you are so concerned with equations, I'll let you work out the math (and when you realize the hit that halflings take - you might want to thank WotC for taking the simple approach)
That means we'd expect them, normally, to have 84% of the same strength, not half. Basically and biomechanically. It's why insects can lift many times their body mass. Now, they don't have the leverage to use some exceptionally large weapons, which require spacing hands further apart, but they're actually pretty well positioned to use anything that they can wrap their hands around.
See above. A quick (back of the envelope) work out shows halflings at UNDER half. However, again - it totally distorts the points you responded to.
Then, there's also the question of the weapon itself. Stretch a blade by a factor of 2, and its moment of inertia quadruples even if you don't change the mass any. Elongate it without changing its thickness, and the moment of inertia octuples. The constraints that make unusually long blades unwieldy aren't scaled linearly, in other words.
Agreed - it's cubed.
Even accounting for leverage and maximum efficient hand spacing, the halfling should be able to apply at least 57% as much torque (84% of the force over 68% of the distance). They could wield an elongated/shortened weapon 83% of the mass and length of a human with equal muscle density with equal facility, in hard-coded physics terms. The intrinsic difference is simply not that big.
See above - you've left out arm reach. For most weapons in the table, it is a factor
Now, that's physics, and this is D&D, which is not necessarily the same thing.
Agreed - which is why I gave the simplistic answer - based on the weapon and size chart.
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"
A static Bonus of some kind in exchange for less options when it comes to 2-Handers. Something like, "Due to their Smaller stature, a Small Character wielding a Weapon in both hands receives a +1 Shield Bonus to AC." Maybe Reflex too, I dunno, I'm not that great for actual fixes; however, it would be nice to have some incentive beyond, "I like Buster Swords and Frodo, so it works for me." :S
A static Bonus of some kind in exchange for less options when it comes to 2-Handers. Something like, "Due to their Smaller stature, a Small Character wielding a Weapon in both hands receives a +1 Shield Bonus to AC." Maybe Reflex too, I dunno, I'm not that great for actual fixes; however, it would be nice to have some incentive beyond, "I like Buster Swords and Frodo, so it works for me." :S
No, i mean what is balance? Equal mechanics of all races? Making each race balance to 0 against the others?
Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot.
@Caeric: without quoting it all - what you are basically saying (again) is that you want all PCs the same - ie. you want them all the same size. That's fine. Do so. It's like the alignment bit (with will). It's a property. You don't like the default rules for the property - not a problem. Change the box from small to medium, you're all done.
Except halflings are Small, and there are a few other features within that of which I'm totally fine with. Weapons are the only thing that bugs me about them. And I already houserule that small characters can use weapons as normal. This is about wanting the general rules changed because I think it'd benefit the ruleset, not because I can't fathom playing a game that doesn't correspond directly with the presented general rules.
Simulationist is the strawman in this case.
If what I said was a strawman, I apologize. I didn't mean to distort your argument. I think I understand it, so maybe I was unclear. You are saying that part of being small should be this weapon restriction, otherwise what's the point of being small (Right? Am I getting it right?)? But it's a bit bleak to decide that the only note of value for a small character is their penalty, not a bonus. Compensation of some sort would be ideal, even if it's just some sort of other benefit of being small. It'd have to have feat support. Right now, being Small is merely a penalty, with exception to the ability to, on occasion, get behind a Large creature one couldn't before or, on occasion, take cover where larger creatures can't.
The question I responded to was why was it "logical" or "illogical". That will necessary use, well, logic. You swipe my arm with a knife, you are not EVER going to cut it off, I do the same with my bastard sword I just might. This is because of one reason, and one reason only - the size of the weapon. Damage is caused by how sharp and how much force. The force, in turn, is mass X acceleration. Increase the mass (to a point), and you are increasing the force, hence increasing the damage.
A valid point. I retract that argument. I is stupid. Or, at least I've never actually swung these weapons or academically studied them (or wikied them, for that matter). Although I contend that physical strength could permit a knife to cut off someone's arm, if the creature was strong enough, but that's just another discussion entirely.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
No, i mean what is balance? Equal mechanics of all races? Making each race balance to 0 against the others?
Each Race Balancing to a number somewhere between -2 and +2 on a 0-set scale would be about right. While I realize this is hard to do given the fact that the scale is one-dimensional and the options available are far more complex, a universal constant should be Balanced out by another universal constant in most cases. I also realize this is hard to do given that there really aren't many negatives in 4th Edition, so finding a point to designate as "0" itself is difficult and also fairly subjective, of course. While I would assume one would use the Human Race as the 0 point on the Race Scale, someone else might argue Humans are at the -1 spot. All-in-all, there are too many variables for a truly universal agreement on everything, but giving entire Races a universal Property that only Penalizes them in specific scenarios, and then these Races receive little-to-no compensation for it in those same scenarios? That doesn't seem Balanced to me, and it certainly seems to push those Races away from certain options. :S
From an Abstract perspective, Balance is the is the sum of the bonuses and penalties being equivelent. Each race gets a stat bonus, each race gets a power, each race gets passive features. Dwarves and Gnomes suffer some speed loss worth a feat, but have extra features worth a feat. Halfings and gnomes suffer Small, and the quote unquote "benefits" that Small offer are not on par, nor is there another racial property to offset being Small.
Yeah, Max, yeah the Mechanics can. Small property says you gain no advantage over every non-Small Race in certain scenarios, and get less damage for choosing to go that path.
It also gives mechanical bonuses.
That's a Penalty,
There are no penalties to being small. There are disadvantages, as well as advantages. A penalty requires the intent to penalize/punish and you cannot prove that WoTC had that intent.
and there's nothing inherent about the Small property that makes up for it in those scenarios.
So what. Damage =/= D&D. Damage =/= all things small. The other advantages OUTSIDE of the partial damage disadvantage in my opinion balance the races. You can disagree, but you cannot prove your opinion to be factually correct.
but until they release some more Small Weapons, there's still yet another Penalty for being Small where you're punished for it in certain scenarios, and now you're dually punished with a bit less damage and quite a few less options.
Prove it. Prove to us all that WoTC had the intent to punish and penalize you for playing a small race. That they didn't come up with these mechanics based on what made sense to them.
A static Bonus of some kind in exchange for less options when it comes to 2-Handers. Something like, "Due to their Smaller stature, a Small Character wielding a Weapon in both hands receives a +1 Shield Bonus to AC." Maybe Reflex too, I dunno, I'm not that great for actual fixes; however, it would be nice to have some incentive beyond, "I like Buster Swords and Frodo, so it works for me." :S
You seem stuck on combat. D&D is not a purely combat game. When a race is balanced, it is balanced as a whole, not as a combat machine. If you gain this static bonus you so desire, what are you willing to give up from all of the other small racials to balance it out?
Semantics? Really?? They're dually "disadvantaged" compared to other Races, via less damage in certain scenarios (with no compensation to make up for that loss of damage) as well as less options to choose from in those same scenarios.
Not just damage; also less options. Just because you don't view it as such or you see the other advantages of being small (which are also subjective to a point) as worth it doesn't mean you are factually correct, either, Max.
Would you really take a Feat that said, "You gain Cover behind 3-foot walls if your DM agrees with you, but do 1 less point of damage and can't choose from all the options others can if you want to wield a 2-Handed Weapon,"? Because while I'd probably take a -1 to Speed for some of the stuff a Dwarf gets, I know I wouldn't. Sure, it's a subjective subject, but it sure seems like you're using your opinion on it as factual information in the premise of your arguments.
You seem stuck on combat. D&D is not a purely combat game. When a race is balanced, it is balanced as a whole, not as a combat machine. If you gain this static bonus you so desire, what are you willing to give up from all of the other small racials to balance it out?
Combat's the only **** place the lower damage and less options in Weapon Choice come up at, Max!
