Small Weapons


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Ok, I have noticed this popping up a lot. People complaining about small weapons doing less damage.

The thing, it is reality. Remember, small races are not just slightly shorter humans. They are like.... 2 ft tall. I.e. they half the size of a pre-teen child. When you are that short, you can't wield full sized very well. Hell, a typical long sword is almost as tall as you are. So of course, weapons that are made for a 2 ft tall person are gonna be.. well.... small. Smaller weapons do less damage (Hence why a "short sword" does less damage than a "longsword").

So, what I am trying to get at is, why are people up in arms?


Because it nerfs small weapon-using characters unnecessarily, while small spellcasters get nothing but benefits.

BTW, 'bigger=more killy' is mostly a gamer thing. You can shank someone just as well with a knife as a sword.


True, but it is easier to hit someone with a bigger weapon than a smaller one (especially since the game does not take into consideration things like awkward positioning due to weapon size and environment).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Zhayne: Exactly the opposite. A small club simply doesn't have the mass of a medium club. Expecting this to be ignored because of perceived balance issues is the "gamer thing".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So let me crack you in the kneecap with a ball-peen hammer instead of a sledgehammer.

I maintain that the skill with which a weapon is used matters more than just its mass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
So let me crack you in the kneecap with a ball-peen hammer instead of a sledgehammer.

Except, with a ball-peen hammer you may break the knee where as with a sledge hammer you will pretty much shatter the knee, and parts of the leg bones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
So let me crack you in the kneecap with a ball-peen hammer instead of a sledgehammer.
Except, with a ball-peen hammer you may break the knee where as with a sledge hammer you will pretty much shatter the knee, and parts of the leg bones.

Basically this. It's simple physics. Bigger generally is better.

I am irked a bit by size penalties to hit with some combat maneuvers, though. A dirty trick is a dirty trick.


Zhayne wrote:


BTW, 'bigger=more killy' is mostly a gamer thing. You can shank someone just as well with a knife as a sword.

And that's why medieval knights eschewed heavy swords for four-inch penknives.

Oh, wait, they didn't. Because you can't shank someone just as well with knives.


blahpers wrote:


I am irked a bit by size penalties to hit with some combat maneuvers, though. A dirty trick is a dirty trick.

Not really. Throw a handful of sand into a 15' giant's face. I dare you.

First, it's too high and sand doesn't throw well. Second, with those puny little human hands of yours, you can barely fit any sand into them. Certainly not enough to matter.


Simple Physics

KE=mv^2 (with some extra stuff that is generally very small and has little effect).

So with this equation, you can see that, assuming both the Ball-peen and the Sledgehammer are moving at the same velocity (of which, depending on how you swing, is actually in the benefit of the ball-peen since the sledge hammer would probably end up moving faster due to its weight and the force of gravity would actually aid you in your acceleration of the sledgehammer), the extra mass of the sledgehammer would impart a greater amount of KE to the knee.


K177Y C47 wrote:

Simple Physics

KE=mv^2 (with some extra stuff that is generally very small and has little effect).

So with this equation, you can see that, assuming both the Ball-peen and the Sledgehammer are moving at the same velocity (of which, depending on how you swing, is actually in the benefit of the ball-peen since the sledge hammer would probably end up moving faster due to its weight and the force of gravity would actually aid you in your acceleration of the sledgehammer), the extra mass of the sledgehammer would impart a greater amount of KE to the knee.

This. Physics are fun =)

Though even from a martial arts standpoint, weapon sizes cause them to be handled quite differently. Small, lighter weapons are quick and easy to handle, but don't have the same oomph as a larger, heavier weapon. This isn't unique to games, this is reality. To believe otherwise suggests that one has never used any of these objects properly.

It's the same sort of logic that leads people to try and argue that a knife is more effective in a fight than a pistol.


Keep in mind that smaller limbs means you can generate more torque with your muscles because the load is closer to the fulcrum. Another thing to consider is that muscle strength is a function of cross-section while body weight (which hampers muscle strength) is a function of volume. So a person twice the size has four times the raw muscle cross-section, but 8 times the weight which would net you only about 50% more net power rather than 300% more. So with 50% more muscle power and a longer arm increasing the force required to move a held object, a Small weapon, while less massive, gets a greater benefit from velocity. So the mv^2 equation is a bit misleading because neither velocity nor mass are constant; you're dealing with less mass but higher velocity and velocity increases quardratically with smaller size while mass only decreases linearly.


Zhayne wrote:

So let me crack you in the kneecap with a ball-peen hammer instead of a sledgehammer.

I maintain that the skill with which a weapon is used matters more than just its mass.

Which is why sneak attacks aren't affected by size.


Kazaan wrote:
Keep in mind that smaller limbs means you can generate more torque with your muscles because the load is closer to the fulcrum. Another thing to consider is that muscle strength is a function of cross-section while body weight (which hampers muscle strength) is a function of volume. So a person twice the size has four times the raw muscle cross-section, but 8 times the weight which would net you only about 50% more net power rather than 300% more. So with 50% more muscle power and a longer arm increasing the force required to move a held object, a Small weapon, while less massive, gets a greater benefit from velocity. So the mv^2 equation is a bit misleading because neither velocity nor mass are constant; you're dealing with less mass but higher velocity and velocity increases quardratically with smaller size while mass only decreases linearly.

Except, again, a Halfling, being 2 ft tall, makes them a 1/3 the size of a human (dwarves sit around 4 ft tall and at considered medium). So at that size, they would be very much weaker than a human and could produce nowhere near the speed or force than a human. This is demonstrated time and time again in real life. When a small child tries and swing at you as hard as they can (which is what halfling effectively is), the blow still tends to slow and weak compared to a full adult.


Kazaan wrote:
So the mv^2 equation is a bit misleading because neither velocity nor mass are constant; you're dealing with less mass but higher velocity and velocity increases quardratically with smaller size while mass only decreases linearly.

Well, the energy imparted to the mass decreases linearly with the decreased mass -- but the mass decrease itself is cubic.

The leverage doesn't matter much in this case; the longer arm increases the force required to move a held object but also increases the velocity of the object at the end of the lever arm appropriately. If you analyze it assuming perfect levers, you end up with the energy from the arm muscles being transferred via the weapon to the target. Since the arm muscles are substantially larger (4x as large in cross section, 8x as large in terms of fiber capacity) for a Medium arm as a Small one, you get at least 4x the energy transfer and hence damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:


Except, again, a Halfling, being 2 ft tall, makes them a 1/3 the size of a human (dwarves sit around 4 ft tall and at considered medium). So at that size, they would be very much weaker than a human and could produce nowhere near the speed or force than a human. This is demonstrated time and time again in real life. When a small child tries and swing at you as hard as they can (which is what halfling effectively is), the blow still tends to slow and weak compared to a full adult.

Don't assume that halfling muscles are equivalent to human child muscles. Chimpanzees, for example, are substantially stronger than humans because of the way their muscles are constructed. Human children, pound for pound, are considerably weaker than human adults.


Paizo messageboards,

Bringing physics to prove the logic in your make-believe world of dragons and magic xD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Smaller creatures can lift a greater ratio of their total mass. Consider the Ant that is often cited as being able to lift 20x its body weight. Now, sure, 20x the weight of an ant is still less when compared directly to what a Human can lift, but it demonstrates how the ratio of what you can lift drops as you get larger and larger. Additionally, volume of muscle is inconsequential; it's the cross-section that determines power. Volume may provide more space for myoglobin and mitochondria for longer power, but cross-section determines burst power. As for children vs adults, a children is stronger than an adult, pound for pound. It's only because there are fewer pounds in a child that the adult out-paces them. I've experienced this first-hand when it took three adults (myself plus two nurses) to hold my 3 week old daughter's leg steady enough to take a blood sample. A halfling or gnome should have a strength comparable to that of a chimp.


Kazaan wrote:
Smaller creatures can lift a greater ratio of their total mass. Consider the Ant that is often cited as being able to lift 20x its body weight. Now, sure, 20x the weight of an ant is still less when compared directly to what a Human can lift, but it demonstrates how the ratio of what you can lift drops as you get larger and larger. Additionally, volume of muscle is inconsequential; it's the cross-section that determines power. Volume may provide more space for myoglobin and mitochondria for longer power, but cross-section determines burst power. As for children vs adults, a children is stronger than an adult, pound for pound. It's only because there are fewer pounds in a child that the adult out-paces them. I've experienced this first-hand when it took three adults (myself plus two nurses) to hold my 3 week old daughter's leg steady enough to take a blood sample. A halfling or gnome should have a strength comparable to that of a chimp.

This is incorrect.

You are attempting to use examples with dramatically different muscle structures in order to make your point. The problem with this is that your argument assumes that the increase in strength for your examples are a result of size, when in reality it is more muscular composition and placement. A gnome or halfling would only be as strong as a chimp if their muscle structure was comparable, which based on the description given to us, is not the case.

What you are describing with your daughter is something that anybody can do. Our normal strength is hindered by the fact that our muscles can only take so much in a given period, so we have a bit of a cap, which varies depending on ability, pain tolerance, etc. In times of great physical stress, or in cases in which the body cannot tell that it is being damaged, the body is able to output much greater force. This is the same idea behind zombies and their strength compared to humans. It has nothing to do with size.


K177Y C47 wrote:


Except, again, a Halfling, being 2 ft tall

Halflings are 3 feet tall.

Quote:
You are attempting to use examples with dramatically different muscle structures in order to make your point. The problem with this is that your argument assumes that the increase in strength for your examples are a result of size, when in reality it is more muscular composition and placement. A gnome or halfling would only be as strong as a chimp if their muscle structure was comparable, which based on the description given to us, is not the case.

How strong a character is isn't the issue though at all. (Most) small characters get a strength penalty baked in, double dipping on that 'punishment' seems silly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know why I don't use the weapon size rules as written?

Small longspears, that's why. 'Nuff said.


Shadowborn wrote:

You know why I don't use the weapon size rules as written?

Small longspears, that's why. 'Nuff said.

Well they are longspears.. in perspective of the halfling lol


Leaving aside physics for a moment:

Because of his greater Strength, an average Large ogre is going to deal more damage when connecting with a Medium club than an average Medium human would with the same club. Now give the ogre a Large club. Shouldn't the ogre do more damage even though he's now swinging a larger, heavier club? This is reflected in the higher weapon damage--not the Strength of the wielder, but the mass of the weapon.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

The thing that bothers me is that it's a double penalty. Small races get smaller weapons and a Str penalty.

There are some exceptions with newer races, such as Wayangs with the Wis penalty. I think that's far healthier than sticking the Str penalty on all small races. Halflings are supposed to be athletic, but they're stuck with the penalty.

Sovereign Court

So would you also get rid of the size modifiers to hit? Surely the ogre's longer arms should be an asset in combat. Maybe not enough to get a bonus, but perhaps enough to offset some random size penalty to hit.

It's a triple-dip, but only two of the dips are to the disadvantage of the small creature.


Ascalaphus wrote:

So would you also get rid of the size modifiers to hit? Surely the ogre's longer arms should be an asset in combat. Maybe not enough to get a bonus, but perhaps enough to offset some random size penalty to hit.

It's a triple-dip, but only two of the dips are to the disadvantage of the small creature.

AC is an amalgam of armor strength and agility (which is why a knight in plate with a shield and an unarmored agile dodger both can have high AC).

Small creatures are harder to hit but when they are hit it's less likely to be a glancing blow... so yeah, it wouldn't be hard to argue that the two could cancel out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed. With the +1 to AC and +1 to hit, the only reason larger creatures have a mechanical advantage is weapon sizes, and it simply makes no sense to set a small longsword at the same damage as a full-sized one. Child-sized weapons have been made, and the effective difference has been evident.

The only place where I consider the size modification to be blatantly wrong is with a firearm. The only reason why a firearm would become less powerful by scaling the same weapon down, is if you were to change the powder count. With Firearms, this isn't necessary, as all you would need to do in order for a smaller person to use it is to shorten the barrel and/or stock. The resulting shortness of the barrel, however, would definitely amount to a loss of accuracy.

Then again, Pathfinder really hasn't managed to get firearms right yet.


I'm generally less concerned about things "making sense" than I am about providing fun and viable options for gameplay, given that the system is geared towards action/adventure fantasy and already uses abstractions like HP and AC. I'm not saying that simulationist elements are verboten, but if the rules work in such a way to make basic race/class combinations inherently inferior, then they're interfering with the core purpose of the game itself.

I must disclose that I don't have enough experience with Small PCs to verify if this is actually an issue or not; maybe the attack and defense benefits are enough to compensate for smaller dice. But if you're arguing that it DOES suck for them but that's okay because the math says it should, then I question your reasoning.


blahpers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
So let me crack you in the kneecap with a ball-peen hammer instead of a sledgehammer.
Except, with a ball-peen hammer you may break the knee where as with a sledge hammer you will pretty much shatter the knee, and parts of the leg bones.
Basically this. It's simple physics. Bigger generally is better.

While in terms of damage, this is true, it's one of the few aspects of reality the game actually takes into account. Speed and reach of weapons is unaffected. A sledgehammer might break my leg when it hits me, but you'll be swinging it much slower than a hammer, though the sledgehammer should have greater reach. In the game, the warhammer just does 1d10 damage, and the small warhammer does 1d8.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Small Weapons All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion