I happen to have a boken (which I bought from nekocon last year) and I was hanging out with my friend. She's only about 4' tall so I endearingly call her hobbit. :3 Anyway she was playing with my boken and it occurred to me how silly it is that there are 'weapon sizes'. If she has any problems with handling a large weapon it's surely due to her lack of strength (no matter how tough she pretends to be), She can grip the boken as well as I can. That in turn led me to think about me and handling knives. Sure the handle is smaller than a weapon but I don't have any problem holding it. Also it just seems silly that there would be two sets of weapon sizes made in a civilized area. Armor makes sense, and even bows (composite at least) make some sense, but the more I think about differently sized blades the weirder it gets. I guess you could have a short staff and a long staff, but a character holding a 'great sword' that happens to be the same size of the next character's 'long sword' is just silly. I can see wielding a giant's weapon as problematic, but different sized weapons just seem weird from my view point. Here's our dagger, here's a small one. I mean, haflings and gnomes already get the str penalty which makes a lot of sense but the weapon holding penalty makes little sense to me.
I think a more realistic check would be to put a minimum Str to wield a weapon properly. And IIRC they do that with composite bows so it shouldn't be that unfamiliar of a process.
A halfling's greatsword is similar to a human's longsword, but the balance will be completely different. What's more, the grip will have a different diameter/feel to it, which can be murder on a wielder's handling of the weapon. As such, I think the rules make sense as written.
A halfling's greatsword is similar to a human's longsword, but the balance will be completely different. What's more, the grip will have a different diameter/feel to it, which can be murder on a wielder's handling of the weapon. As such, I think the rules make sense as written.
True enough, a giants club would be a tree trunk to a man ;)
I can almost kinda see it, but then I think about how she's only a foot and a half shorter than me, so if someone were a foot and a half taller than me (such as Golarion's elves), why do we get the same weapon? And really the only thing that I can see needing any change is the grip, maybe. (That same reasoning has me bothered with speed too)
Was the small weapon idea done on a whim and supported with theories, or did someone actually go and study small people with weapons. (BTW small people are scary no matter how cute they look xp)
Note that a halfling is roughly the proportions of a human child. Four feet tall is too tall for a halfing, who top out at 3'4" (and that's like a 6'6" human). Average halfling height is 3 feet tall.
I know she's more the size a gnome, but she prefers the name 'hobbit'
I was just added to the game over time. Which is why it has alway been a misshaped beast that it is. Many of the size changes took more notice with 3.0 or 3.5 rules which passed over to pathfinder.
Many of the OD&D did not even have weapons listed by size.
Also it just seems silly that there would be two sets of weapon sizes made in a civilized area.In a world were nearly everything is hand made I would expect there to be dozens if not hundreds of variations to size in weapons. D&D just breaks the classifications down into the size categories.
Even in a modern world of you go various martial arts centers, they are likely to have child size practice weapons. (Assuming children are tought there.)
While I haven't seen your boken. And I understand they are often wielded with two hands, I really think in D&D they'd be classified as a one handed weapon. I have a hard time envisioning it as bigger than a bastard sword at any rate.
As far as small weapons. Take a quarterstaff (6 feet in length.) Now cut its size in half (3'). You really think you can wield a 3' quarterstaff in the same manner as a you would a 6 foot one.
And of course you could go back to 3.0 weapon rules. But as you hit upon the probablem really lies with what do giants and pixies wield?. Do you really want to come up with a new name for the same basic weapon for every size category? I think the weapon size change was one of the better ones from 3.0 > 3.5
If it helps, most bokken are about 1m long. 9-10 inches of hilt, and 28-29 inches of blade. For a lot of history, katana averaged smaller than that, though.
Edit: Probably would be helpful if I actually gave the comparison to a bastard sword that I originally intended to do. A bastard sword should be about 4 feet, so the bokken is about 3/4 the size.
We eventually just ruled that small weapons were the 'next size down' human weapons.
A small longsword and a human shortsword are the same weapon; it's just considered One Handed for a small creature and Light for a human.
I have a halfling with EWP [Bastard Sword] that is specifically him learning to use a human scale longsword.
I can almost kinda see it, but then I think about how she's only a foot and a half shorter than me, so if someone were a foot and a half taller than me (such as Golarion's elves), why do we get the same weapon?
You're half right. 1.5 feet isn't enough to make a difference. Instead of comparing tall elves to short humans, however, compare those tall elves to the halflings. Three feet can make a HUGE difference when it comes to fighting and wielding weapons.
They had to draw the line somewhere. Sure the game designers could have put the mechanical divide in between the tall elf and the short human, rather than between the humans and the halflings, but they figured it made more sense their way.
|
Note that a halfling is roughly the proportions of a human child. Four feet tall is too tall for a halfing, who top out at 3'4" (and that's like a 6'6" human). Average halfling height is 3 feet tall.I know she's more the size a gnome, but she prefers the name 'hobbit'
No she's not, your friend is not a gnome or a halfling, and using her as an example then complaining that it's not making any sense is a false comparison in the first place.
Actually look at the height chart instead of just nicknaming your friends. I can call my wife "storm giant" that doesn't mean she's the appropriate size catagory to claim that humans should be able to wield any weapon a storm giant wields because I can wield anything my wife wields.
Max height for a gnome is 3' 8" which is still shorter than your friend. and that's for a gnome giant, that gnome would be the star of the gnome basketball team and pegged for all the gnome nike adds. In other words your friend is taller than the tallest freak gnome in all of gnomeland freakdom. Your friend fits right into the size category range of a dwarf, and dwarfs are medium creatures. Now go give your Bokken to a seven year old and tell me that he can effectively wield it as well as you.
He can wield it, but he wields it differently, and never as effectively as you could. Which is why changing weapon size categories gives a minor penalty -2 but doesn't mean you can't wield it. The rules work perfectly fine and make perfect sense. But hey lets change them, from now on I can wield colossal weapons because I nicknamed my friend ancient red dragon, he's one inch taller than me.
|
|
?????????
wanders away.......
and now I know you aren't related to a kender because I still have my wallet.
So looking at gnomes there's something I just caught that I never noticed before, gnome females are WAAAAAAAAY smaller than gnome males. The tallest gnome females are still 4" shorter than the shortest gnome males. when you look at the average the females are a foot shorter. that's pretty significant when your only 2' tall to begin with. just a wierdness I never really noticed before today.
Thanks for the size comparison. I guess I've always imagined gnomes and halflings bigger than they actually are. And seeing that Dwarves are medium creatures, it makes sense.
|
|
Thanks for the size comparison. I guess I've always imagined gnomes and halflings bigger than they actually are. And seeing that Dwarves are medium creatures, it makes sense.
No prob, thanks for not taking offense, I just re-read my first post and it reads now waaay more aggressive than it is, it's supposed to be tongue in cheek over the top silly and instead just reads kinda mean now that I look at it.
