Also, as has been stated, a 'short sword' is different than a small 'long sword'.
To what extent? How is it different, exactly? Explain the differences (significant enough to warrant additional rules).
I'll explain this. Did you know that a "short sword" and a "long sword" differ by more than just their length? It's true. They are balanced very differently. A short sword has a thin, light blade with the majority of its weight in the hilt. This allows the weilder to make quick thrusts and parries, but doesn't gain much from swinging it, as there's little torque. A long sword, on the other hand, has a light hilt and a (relatively) heavy blade, with the majoirty of its weight closer to the tip. The weilder can still parry and thrust, but with less ease, however, more benefit is derived from swinging it as it's designed to increase angular momentum.
Yet, you completely failed to address my request. Let me reiterate:
Explain the differences (significant enough to warrant additional rules).
Are you saying shortswords offer a parry bonus? Because that's not a game mechanic currently. So clearly the differences are no more than "descriptive and stylistic" at best. I still see no practical *rules* reasons to differentiate the two.
I'll wait...
[Edit: Also, you mean the "shortsword" and "longsword", as you see them in your world/history? Not the "shortsword or "longsword" of D&D. Just to be clear...]
So you want to say that a halfling wielding a "small longsword" deals the same damage as a human with "medium/normal longsword"?
Sure, you could put it like that, yes. The only major concession that needs to be made their is the Halfling's Strength score. The Halfling's Strength is not penalized, despite a significant size difference, because of concerns of balance and pigeon-holing. This is a necessity, though, because the Halfling is a PC race. The same won't necessarily and probably shouldn't apply to NPCs and other creatures.
Simply put, you (and/or anyone else arguing a similar point) contend that there is a fundamental difference between a human-sized shortsword and a halfling longsword. Enough to prevent them from being interchangeable for the purposes of game modularity.
The most significant difference is simple: The wielder. Failing to take the wielder into account is what's leading to the confusion.
To defend that opinion, you began explaining how a halfling longword is constructed (and used) differently.
It was my error to lead that comment with that. I assumed that you had read the long explanation that I provided earlier in the thread and that you already understood the basic premise of my posion. If you did, though, then you would know that such a concern is and should be merely an afterthought.
I then asked how your logic would be applied to other weapon groups, like spears, axes and hammers. None of which have "hilts".
As that is not anything close to the primary concern of my argument, it really doesn't matter.
How is this not a fair extrapolation?
Because it's focusing on a small, relatively irrelevant part of my argument. I know I just said that three times, but I really want to drive the point home that it's not important to my point. Let's say that you're right and hilt size isn't worth worrying about. Okay, whatever. I don't care, and my argument, for all relevant purposes, remains perfectly intact. I use it as further justification because I can, but if you don't agree and don't want me to, then I don't need to.
What you're doing is taking a very traditional approach to the question of weapon size, an approach that results in unnecessary penalties and pigeon-holing. What I'm doing is approaching the question from another angle entirely, one that D&D has not traditionally used, one that takes the size concerns of the wielder and ties it direct to the weapon rules themselves rather than to the general size rules. You're going to have to be open-minded and try to look at the question from a different angle if you're going to understand my argument. Getting caught up on a minor, irrelevant afterthought is not going to help.
Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha
Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further.
Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
The most significant difference is simple: The wielder. Failing to take the wielder into account is what's leading to the confusion.
Fine. So why wouldn't a human rogue, picking up a halfling longsword, be able to wield it as a shortsword? It is of the same general length and weight. To the human, it is a shortsword, because he's the wielder.
Also, as has been stated, a 'short sword' is different than a small 'long sword'.
To what extent? How is it different, exactly? Explain the differences (significant enough to warrant additional rules).
I'll explain this. Did you know that a "short sword" and a "long sword" differ by more than just their length? It's true. They are balanced very differently. A short sword has a thin, light blade with the majority of its weight in the hilt. This allows the weilder to make quick thrusts and parries, but doesn't gain much from swinging it, as there's little torque. A long sword, on the other hand, has a light hilt and a (relatively) heavy blade, with the majoirty of its weight closer to the tip. The weilder can still parry and thrust, but with less ease, however, more benefit is derived from swinging it as it's designed to increase angular momentum.
Ok, this is dead wrong.
A longsword 4,5 ft long (greatsword maybe in D&D terms) has a balance point somewhere 1-4 inches from crossguard. a shortsword/sidesword/arming sword, about 3 ft long has a balance point around 1-2 in from crossguard.
The human looks at a human shortsword and a halfling longsword lying side by side. He notices they are practically identical in every way (length, weight, etc.). One he is somehow good at using (finesseable) and deals d6. The other, despite such similarities, is arbitrarily more awkward to wield (for being a martial weapon now) but somehow does d8 damage.
Yet they are practically, in all ways, the same when placed next to each other on a table. What's the point?
Also, as has been stated, a 'short sword' is different than a small 'long sword'.
To what extent? How is it different, exactly? Explain the differences (significant enough to warrant additional rules).
I'll explain this. Did you know that a "short sword" and a "long sword" differ by more than just their length? It's true. They are balanced very differently. A short sword has a thin, light blade with the majority of its weight in the hilt. This allows the weilder to make quick thrusts and parries, but doesn't gain much from swinging it, as there's little torque. A long sword, on the other hand, has a light hilt and a (relatively) heavy blade, with the majoirty of its weight closer to the tip. The weilder can still parry and thrust, but with less ease, however, more benefit is derived from swinging it as it's designed to increase angular momentum.
Ok, this is dead wrong.
A longsword 4,5 ft long (greatsword maybe in D&D terms) has a balance point somewhere 1-4 inches from crossguard. a shortsword/sidesword/arming sword, about 3 ft long has a balance point around 1-2 in from crossguard.
Which really, at the end of the day, doesn't matter either way. I want my longsword to look and feel differently than the narrow version he proposes. It's my longsword. Not all longswords are identical. Neither in length, weight, balance, or looks.
Or better yet, why is an elven longsword the same as an orc longsword? That's just ridiculous.
So why wouldn't a human rogue, picking up a halfling longsword, be able to wield it as a shortsword?
Because rules for wielding weapons of inappropriate size are an afterthought, a side note, a corner case. The weapon size rules shouldn't be built around them because nobody's ever going to use them. They only exist as a minor aside to satisfy the question for those who have it, so making them as simulationist as possible is unnecessary. "You take disadvantage" or something similar is all that somebody needs to know to go "Ah, a penalty, as expected" and move on to never use the rule.
It is of the same general length and weight. To the human, it is a shortsword, because he's the wielder.
If you want complicate the rules for wielding weapons of a different size, then that's your prerogative, but then you can't sit their and berate other people for perceived delving into unnecessary complications. Could you complicate the rules? Sure. Instead of just disadvantage, maybe the damage die also drops one size for a weapon one size smaller and increases by one size for a weapon one size larger. Or maybe the weapon die just drops by a size for one size smaller and it's only a larger version that includes disadvantage, maybe even with the further stipulation that attacks made with it can't gain advantage to offset the disadvantage. All are viable answers to the question of what happened when creatures wield inappropriately sized weapons. I just take the approach that, if nobody's going to use those rules (which they shoudn't and won't), then why bother making them so complicated?
Yet they are practically, in all ways, the same when placed next to each other on a table. What's the point?
Ask the DM, who's clearly just being a dick? Alternatively, it's trivial to add: "For weapons sized for larger or smaller creatures but that could be considered similar to another sort of weapon that a character could normally wield, a DM may decide to treat the inappropriately sized weapon as a different appropriately sized weapon. For example, a Halfling could be allowed to treat a Human's shortsword as a longsword or a Human could be allowed to treat a Halfling's longbow as a shortbow." If you want to make it that complicated, then fine. These corner case alternative rules, though, do not alter for better or for worse the merit of the original idea.
Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha
Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further.
Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
small creatures, can wield tiny weapons as finesse, small as one handed and medium as two handed,
medium creatures, can wield tiny and small weapons as finesse, medium as one handed and large as two handed,
large creatures, can wield tiny, small and medium weapons as finesse, large as one handed and huge as two handed,
Simple and straight-forward. I like it. I would probably say that a weapon more than two size categories smaller than you is unusable, though - the mental image of an ogre holding a tiny dagger is a little bit further than I think is reasonable.
Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha
Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further.
Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Because I contend there is no "halfling longsword" in the first place. Halflings would simply wield the shortsword (as found on the weapon table) as a human would wield a longsword. For the purposes of style, proportions, feel, etc. But not by different rules. Unnecessary rules.
The fact that you've invented racial weapon sizes/types is where the absurd complications began. It opens a can of bloat in the rules that need not be there in the first place.
A shortsword is a shortword. Doesn't matter who uses it. It is empirically a sword, with a blade length within a certain range (a parameter of "longer than a dagger, shorter than a longsword"), weighing around 3 pounds or so, that does d6 damage. Done.
