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. |
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. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. |
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. |
You know why I don't use the weapon size rules as written?
Small longspears, that's why. 'Nuff said.
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.
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.
|
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.
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.
Basically this. It's simple physics. Bigger generally is better.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.
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.