I'm not sure if I asked this directly of you, so let me do so now. From the above, would you be satisfied if the current MEDIUM weapon table was translated AS IS (according the weapon and size chart - ie. 1 die shift, - reach) to create an equal SMALL weapon table? A consistent solution, that would actually (due to current small tags) allow MORE options for halflings.
edited: clarified.
Hmm... I think that would work too. The damage thing is annoying (just a personal thing), but easily there could be (and already are examples of like) feats for that. 3.5 dropped that because of all the extra baggage of having weapons of different sizes between PCs inherently possesses (for loot and usability between sizes).
Here's a counter-proposal for a solution based on that one: maybe small characters wield two-handed and versatile weapons with a one-stage decrease in damagem (fullblades do 1d10, bastard swords do 1d8), to account for the unwieldliness. If a small character wields the versatile weapon in two hands, it does the full damage as a medium character would with it (bastard sword deals 1d10). It would sort of exemplify this idea that small characters have to be disadvantaged with the weapons everyone else can use just fine (grumble grumble), while still allowing them to function with as many options as the other characters. And, it wouldn't be a burden on the rules and gameplay when loot came into it.
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.
Here's a counter-proposal for a solution based on that one: maybe small characters wield two-handed and versatile weapons with a one-stage decrease in damagem (fullblades do 1d10, bastard swords do 1d8), to account for the unwieldliness. If a small character wields the versatile weapon in two hands, it does the full damage as a medium character would with it (bastard sword deals 1d10). It would sort of exemplify this idea that small characters have to be disadvantaged with the weapons everyone else can use just fine (grumble grumble), while still allowing them to function with as many options as the other characters. And, it wouldn't be a burden on the rules and gameplay when loot came into it.
I think I'd be ok with that compromise.
Yes, the latest book/release that you don't like is a blatant attempt by Wizards of the Coast to make money off the fanbase. They all are. That's kinda the point of the Free Enterprise system, companies are in it to make money...
You can't! I tried... and the next night masked men came into my house and beat me until I burned up my ranger character sheet and rolled a scout. They told me... if I ever thought of making a non-essential character that they would kill mitsy..... OH GOD THEY ARE COMING BACK AND ARE FORCING ME TO BUY HEROES OF SHADOWS! SOMEONE STOP THEM PLEASE!
Your DM is your friend. He's not trying to screw with you, or dick you around. Play your character how your character would act. Accept that your character won't always be able to do what he's best at, but also know that as a goddamn HERO, he's gonna try to do his best at what he can do.
Roleplay your goddamn character, make the decisions he would make, and roll appropriately. Everything will be fine.
But filling a post with vitriol, hate-filled comments, like "these people should be fired", swearing at us or other ambiguous members of the company - there really is no reason for that. Please share your feedback respectfully, and consider how you would share your ideas if this were a face to face conversation between real people, not faceless names on a screen.
If you see me posting in a thread about editions or Essentials (that isn't simply a rules thread or similar) remind me that I'm trying to stay away from them. (My blood pressure will thank us both.)
You have 8,000 posts. You know darn well we'll just find something else stupid to argue about.
I don't think they'd change the flavor of the race that much.
Do you know how many short jokes a guy that is 5'0-5'4" gets? Let alone one that's a fly weight like the old 3e elves?
Heck let's not be even as generous as I'd let the Halfling be. Let's say their minimum height is what their current max is at 4'5" and raise the max height to 5'2".
Halfling would still readily apply as the stereotype name that it is. (And really what race would call themselves Halfling willingly. It implies, Half a man for crying out loud)
I think this is more of a case of Wizards not grasping just how stupidly short a Halfling is. Even now (and they gained a foot in height) that they've changed from previous editions.
And yeah we would, but the amount of Stupid Threads have gone down over the course of the last year. Most of the ones that remain are a direct result of Nonsensical Clinging to Tradition just for tradition's sake in the rules.
It's not realistic to have them as they are now, reasons among them being that frankly bigger people win, when skill level is comparable in a real fight. The Halfling and it's Small pc brethren being "Small" and penalized to be "realistic" in itself is a farce, they'd be easier to dominate physically (grabing, throwing them around, knocking them down etc) to the point that they'd be a non factor in most combats, especially as the monsters get bigger.
http://guild.medialoungeca.com/index.php?action=forum The Guild I'm apart of. We're in WOW, STO, Rift and soon Star Wars feel free to register and hang out. http://sparkster11.deviantart.com/ my deviantart Wheelman of the House of Trolls, "I love it when you watch" Carrier of Section 2, 3 and 6 cargo. Resident Driver Stud God of Transportation and Lust.
The imbalance is a) not new, b) logical, because size does matter, and c) probably never going to change since it has always been the case.
a) I know that, and I hope everyone here knows that. b) This is an abstract system, logic has only so much place here. People explain away how halflings can perform feats of strength alongside others of equal strength score while still being physically weaker in-game, why not weapon use too? c) Unfortunately, a realistic assessment, but 4th Edition is proof of the capacity for the designers to shake off the old ideas that don't actually work and retool or remove them, bringing in shiny ideas that do work. Small weapon restrictions are just an unfortunate mistake (or, I feel it was a mistake, they might not). But if we yell loud enough, maybe they'll hear us and bring it back to the table with our opinions in mind, and they'll fix it.
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.
I think this is more of a case of Wizards not grasping just how stupidly short a Halfling is. Even now (and they gained a foot in height) that they've changed from previous editions.
I remember reading somewhere in the runup to 4e that a dev was wrestling with his toddlers one day and thought to himself, "Hey, these guys are about the size of a halfling, and there is just no way they could ever take me." So they decided to make halflings bigger.
I prefer to imagine halflings as about the size of an adolescent boy pre- or mid-growth spurt. A guy that size is a plausible threat. At a certain point halflings are so small you would think that they would wield oversized weapons just to compensate for their ridiculously short reach. Another approach might be to give halflings a free medium-sized mount and rule that they can choose to be medium sized when they are riding it and small when they are not.
I think this is more of a case of Wizards not grasping just how stupidly short a Halfling is. Even now (and they gained a foot in height) that they've changed from previous editions.
I remember reading somewhere in the runup to 4e that a dev was wrestling with his toddlers one day and thought to himself, "Hey, these guys are about the size of a halfling, and there is just no way they could ever take me." So they decided to make halflings bigger.
I prefer to imagine halflings as about the size of an adolescent boy pre- or mid-growth spurt. A guy that size is a plausible threat. At a certain point halflings are so small you would think that they would wield oversized weapons just to compensate for their ridiculously short reach. Another approach might be to give halflings a free medium-sized mount and rule that they can choose to be medium sized when they are riding it and small when they are not.
I posted what you are thinking of hundreds of posts back lol.
Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot.
I posted what you are thinking of hundreds of posts back lol.
About the size or the free mount? I remember somebody else posting about size. I thought the mount was my idea, but I am a notional kleptomaniac so it's possible it came from somewhere else.
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.
Science! It's sharp and shiney.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
If we're realistic, the most likely way that WotC will correct this problem is by repeating what they've done in the past: introduced rules for Small sized weapons. As I've said earlier, D&D has alternated back and forth between Small races using Small size weapons with a corresponding smaller damage die (2E, 3.5E) and having Small races use a limited subset of Medium size weapons (1E, 3E, 4E).
Sad, but true. The most likely result of this whinefest would be a return to the 3.5 system in which every medium sized weapon had a die-smaller 'small' size version, thus erasing another thing that makes small sized races slightly distinctive. Presumably, weapons, like armor, could be re-sized with a fairly trivial ritual. It would all be very 'fair' and very blah.
With all the Winning Races articles coming out, I wouldn't be surprised if they released something in universal content (not just DDI only) that let Small races take a feat to use Medium-sized weapons like Medium creatures. After all, most Small characters are going to play to their strengths, and generally the only ones who'll want not to are the ones who want to play something bizarre, or the folks who've been griping the most on this thread.
The original core books said that this was our game too. It doesn't feel like that anymore.
