Quandry: Small Weapons

could you please confirm that?

if I give my Level 1 Halfling Rogue a "standard" Shortsword... like the ones being sold in Hommlet town shops... it will do 1d6 damage, NOT 1d4 damage?

thanks...

(if you are correct, me wonders why they even bothered with that extra column in the equipment lists)

 

well obviously

but I think a halfling could use a normal raiper they're not heavy...

it's just reach, if the blade was shorter of course less damage would be delt, but for this weapon I think having a big and small version is unnessary.

 

Yes Locutus, if you give a halfling a regular shortsword, it will deal 1d6 damage +/- whatever your character's str bonus is. Halflings cannot finesse regular (medium-sized) shortswords, because in effect it acts like a longsword for a halfling.

 

They could use it, but they could not finesse it and would have to wield it 2 handed, because the weapon's size is medium.

 

Some of these rules...

...are just goofy. A dagger wielded by a person the size and strength of a typical human dwarf (or little person, if you like) would be just as deadly and damaging as if borne by a person not so vertically challenged. Now maybe a Claymore is a different story, or a perhaps Halberd...and I'll even give up the Longbow...but not a dagger or a shortsword. A longsword would become their bastard sword, though, requiring two hands at times. Definetly two hands on an axe, unless of the 'hand' variety. But the damage should not change at all; the former weapons should simply be unusable.

 

The reason that I'm going on about the raiper, is that comparing my own experiances using a raiper as a child with a halfling, ok I would've been slightly taller than the average halfling (I was just looking at some old photos) but I could wield a rapier one handed (seriously they're light) I don't know if I ever got weapon finness feat though I never cheacked my stats and I can't remember leveling up, but I don't see why not. For length a raiper is a medium weapon but in every other way they're small.

Lord Spike I agree.

 

Actual rapiers are heavier than fencing foils. In fact, this rapier weighs the same amount as this longsword. Rapiers were longer, thinner and balanced for thrusting, but they generally weren't actually lighter.

The damage doesn't change because of the size of the user. It changes because of the size of the weapon. What is considered a dagger to a halfling is smaller than what is considered a dagger to a human. Give a human dagger to a halfling of the same strength and it will do the same amount of damage.

 

In general, rapiers were MUCH lighter that swords (especially long ones). Unless we are talking about pre- or post- heavyarmor period swords. Knight longswords had an average weight of 2.5-3kg. While rapiers - 1.5kg at most, usually less.
The rapier you took as an example is Italian, which explains a lot. We could talk about two quite different fencing schools - French and Italian. French being the flashy and deceptive one (this became sport), lots of "show" and fake moves, while Italian was focussed on strength and simplicity. So rapiers used were quite different - French were light, Italian were heavier, hilt handguards were different - Italian, just like in the picture, prevented user from intricate wrist movements, but allowed better grip, etc. The one in the picture even has quite massive balancing pommel, which wasn't that common I think.

Anyway, my point is - it's not a trivial thing. Weaponry changed a lot throughout time and place, every region using somewhat different variants. Even if they are all generalized as "longsword", "rapier" or "dagger".

And if you try to stuff weapons of various eras into one pc game, well, it can't be very objective.

Not to mention the fact that any serious weapon was custom-made to suit the user as best as possible.

So such discussions, while can be interesting, can't lead to anything really productive.

Except that halfling with his short reach has a lot less chance to do any serious damage at all (reaching lethal spots).
But here we bump into the problem of such game system. Combat is very unrealistic anyway.

 

I would have something to argue, as always , but you made the point. D&D is not realistic, even if it is better than previous editions and that's the role of a DM: give a meaning to rolls so that what happens is as much as realistic as possibile. But at least it is balanced as much as possible, even if making smaller versions of all weapons causes some kind of trouble. For example, a small bastard sword would deal 1d8 damage, but, being a small weapon, a medim-size creature may use weapon finesse with it or use it as second weapon without penalities!

 

Unless...

...one takes into account their natural proximity to the femoral artery in man-sized opponents. Then, of course, the chance is much greater.

 

Well, any small creature would be harder to hit, and normally more mobile. Of course, it would be weaker on the side of brute force. So, D&D just follows common sense. A child would find it harder to wield a sword than a grown-up, and a greatsword would be simply beyond its ability. Of course, there is a far greater selection of weapons suited than just a dagger, and this should be reflected in the game.

 

First of all, the benefits ARE equivalent. A +1 also increases bypass of damage reduction, and hardness of the weapon, etc.

Secondly, this has been addressed and fixed already in later patches.
When I looked it was 40XP per 1000 g for enchanting a sword, now its at 80XP