Community

Jan 22, 2010 -- 9:57PM, Scipio wrote:

Jan 22, 2010 -- 9:49PM, DoctorBadWolf wrote:

I'll simply direct you to earlier posts in this thread, and remind myself of why I stopped seriously following this thread.

Is anyone seriously following this thread, or has everyone demoted it to "train-wreck curiosity" as I have?

Thats actually why I bother reading most of the 100 page threads on these boards...

Jan 23, 2010 -- 6:20AM, PBN wrote:

Jan 23, 2010 -- 2:12AM, Tony_Vargas wrote:

halflings make very good artful dodger rogues or chaos sorcerers, gnomes make absurdly good illusion-focused wizards. 

Minor correction - halflings make absurdly good artful dodger rogues

Yes, it's one of those 'perfect storm' race/class combos - like elven archer-ranger - that could only have been intentional.

Granted it was hyperbolic - not to the degree you mention.

It was indeed that hyperbolic. Existing "great" swords push the limits of the size of blade which two human hands can apply effective torques to manipulate. A five foot blade attached to a handle sized for a halfing versus a human is a far easier torque problem (the halfling simply needs 1.47 times the brute force to compensate for his .68 times smaller lever) than even the "corrected" version of your hyperbole comparing, say, an 8.4' blade vs a 5' blade in human hands (3.19 times the brute force required).

The "legendary" german greatsword fighter I mentioned before is supposed to have used a weapon seven feet in overall length when a normal greatsword topped out at six - a more impressive feat, all things considered, than a halfling wielding a human-sized greatsword, as the appropriate calculations easily demonstrate. It would be exceptional, unusual, but not utterly impossible.

And that leverage disadvantage calculation only applies in the case that the effective lever is indeed limited strictly by the size of the operator - true for the largest swords and long hafted weapons, but not necessarily for the shorter-handled longsword being used in two hands, where the handle is not too long for a halfing to use all of it. Being able to use all of it, they are able to perform finesse actions with precisely the same facility.

The 88% difference in length required by leverage? Well, that is similar to the variation within a given weapon type. A 0.93 scale model? Not easy to distinguish from the original. And, of course, that only applies to specific types of cuts - not lunges, not parries, not even all slashing attacks.

Certainly there is a difference when we're talking about the most extreme examples, but the rules are not being especially generous to halflings in this regard, as I suspect you believe. They disallow halflings from using a ~3' Viking-style longsword one-handed regardless of training when a well-trained human can use a ~4' bastard sword one-handed, and disallow them from using a ~4.5-5' greatsword regardless of training when a well-trained human can use a fullblade up to ~6' long. A human using an eight foot spear will pivot it with similar speed as a halfling of equal strength with a truncated seven foot spear with 68% of the moment of inertia.

You've spoken often about the "absurdity" of a halfling using a greatsword; in truth, it would not be all that absurd to allow a halfling to use a Superior versatile weapon as if it were a Martial two-handed weapon, a Martial Versatile weapon as a Superior versatie weapon, and a Martial two-handed weapon as a Superior two-handed weapon. That would be a valid comparison based on their ability to physically manipulate the weapon with equal ease.

The roughest problem for the hypothetical of halfling greatswords is really not torque or strength; it's the nearness of the ground, the ability to draw the weapon out of a sheath, et cetera. Different considerations than the moment of blade they are able to maneuver with ease. The existing rules are not unreasonable for that reason; however, they are not over-generous to Small characters.

Your calculations fail to include all aspects of weaponry.

A truly remarkable statement coming from yourself, who engaged in gross oversimplification.

Namely - strength is not the determining factor (espcially in blades).

In the case of the extremely large blades, the size and mass of the blade is strength-limited. It's far from the only important factor, but exceptionally large blades require an exceptional amount of strength to use effectively in addition to other factors.

To use the same weaponry - much of the compensation you claim to gain is lost in balance and control.

+2 DEX bonus mean anything to me? To me, it means superior fine-motor control and a superior sense of balance.

The further the center of balance (linear scale) moves away from the center of gravity of the wielder, the larger the proportion of energy used just to maintain the weapon.

Aim for comprehension here. The typical distance between the center of balance of a blade and the center of gravity of the user can be generalized as A+l, where l is the length between grip and center of balance of the weapon and A is proportionate to the arm length.

l is generally negligible in the case of well-balanced swords with which one performs bladework. A is, strangely, ~68% as long for halflings, and barely larger compared to their mass itself. Sure, the halfling weighs half as much - but this also means that, while the weapon shifts his point of balance by 36% more, he needs only half the same static force to keep his body in a combat crouch. More static upper body work, less static lower body work. And trust me, the legs have to do plenty of work in a fight. You might want to repair your statement into a coherent argument of some sort.

(l negligible is not the case for a certain class including a number of cavalry sabers, khopeshes, bludgeons, and other similar weapons which place the balance further towards the tip. See earlier comments about how much more awkward it ought to be for Joe Halfling to wield a saber - that scenario more closely approaches your complaints than the situation of the longsword does.)

Further, greater "damage" is achieved by striking with at the weapons percussion point - which, again, is on a linear scale.

A linear scale of what? The length of the sword itself, in a precision cut. The length of the arm for a long-swung pommel strike to the head. For a halfing managing a sword the same size as a human, these lengths vary from 0.68x to 1x that of a human. A very typical length might be elbow to tip, or shoulder to tip - with, which a longer blade, will generally be closer to 1 than to .68.

So, as stated, 12 is hyperbolic - only insofar as halflings aren't 3' tall. (although, I do believe that I specified that in my hyperbolic example), you've given him a fully unwieldy weapon, wherein most of his energy is lost.  Achieving the same effect requires a linear scaling of the weapon.

Which is why a Roman short sword has only half the effect of a Visigoth's long sword, right?

Now I understand why the Roman legions performed so badly in the field. Obviously the too-short gladius led to persistent defeats in the field by better-armed enemies, such as the Carthaginians, and later the Visigoths, when they overran the provincial Carthaginian territories held for them by subservient Roman governors using the local legions allowed them by their distant Carthaginian overlords using their ineffectual gladiuses! It is all so clear to me now!

...the effect of the weapon depends enormously on a wide range of factors.

Why is a main gauche still effective in a parry in spite of its short length? It's the flip side of the long lever. Lock hilts with a halfling. The fulcrum of the lever you're trying to move is his elbow, 0.68 times as far away as his fulcrum - your elbow. A halfling 84% as strong has a 23% net advantage in matching his forte to yours. (A true scaled human would be at a 16% net disadvantage due to having only 57% of the strength. Details, details! They matter!)

This is why, when parrying, you match forte to foible. The leverage advantage is so great that a child can push around the tip of a bodybuilder's blade using his guard.

The shorter arm is actually an advantage in close-fighting. I've seen it (and experienced it) hundreds of times on the fencing strip; the shorter arm can be pumped more quickly. In fencing, the reach advantage of greater height usually is more important than the speed of remise in cramped quarters. In general combat, I would even say the greater reach is still more of an advantage, but the maxim still holds: The more general the activity, the less the advantage of greater size. And wielding a given weapon effectively in combat is a very general activity. Sheer height is not as important for swordsmen as it is for basketball players, and you even get the occasional short dude there.

Jan 23, 2010 -- 8:43AM, Alyri wrote:

Jan 23, 2010 -- 8:05AM, Kletian999 wrote:

And yet mediocre Nightstalker Assassins.  Gnomes are worse Assault Swordmages than classes without INT stats.  Every other race uses only ability scores to say what they are good and "less good at"- only small races get to be actually BAD at something. 

Medicore and Worse,  How?
Oh you mean the theoritical math says the supposed DPR says something,   not in any way that makes the race unable to you know actually play the class or anything.

a halfling is a worse nightstalker assassin than any other dex/cha race. a bastard sword and a fullblade aren't different just in die step, one also has a weapon property and one doesn't. honestly, best halfling choice is a broadsword and second weapon with two weapon fighting feats.