"A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder."
"Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies."
"The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all."
I am in a tangy (not fully heated) discussion about whether or not one can use a Medium sized shortsword as a Small longsword to overcome the difference in damage type (and take a -2 penalty for size difference) because the damage, weight, and special qualities (which it has none). My reading say that this is possible because of the lack of a direct ruling (that I have found) and because it logically makes sense ignoring rules (see below for explanation). If there is anyone who knows of a official ruling, please link me to it or if a creator/editor could tell me that would help.
My interpretation of the rule is that a small long sword and a medium short sword are both tiny sized therefore no difference in mechanic size and there is no significant difference in physical dimensions size by the descriptions of the weapons. There is also no difference between them besides one uses Slashing damage and the other uses Piercing damage. However, should this be true, I am now using a small weapon as a medium creature so I must take a -2 on my attack roll.
In real life this would make even more sense, a short sword (say roman glatus) is designed for stabbing and puncture wounds but can still be used for slashing all be it with less efficiency. A long sword (say Excalibur) is designed for slashing and hacking but can still be used to poke and stab, albeit with less efficiency. This efficiency could be represented with a -2 attack in pathfinder systems.
This -2 attack is already present with Pathfinder's Iconic Barbarian. She uses a Bastard Sword sized for a large creature when she is a medium creature and just takes a -2 and uses it as a two-handed weapon (This is possible because she has a exotic proficiency feat that makes the Bastard sword a one handed weapon for a larger creature making it a two handed weapon for a medium creature. If she did not have the proficiency, she could not wield it because it would be pushed to a size category larger than two handed which is prohibited by the ruling "If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.") Could this interpretation be pushed down to the difference of Medium short sword vs. Small long sword to account for the difference in damage types and the -2 awkwardness of attack style compared to intended use?
I am really not sure if you are trying to say that a Small Long Sword = a Short Sword with a -2 attack penalty or...something else.
But, the rules are pretty clear, a Small Long Sword is still a Long Sword. A Medium creature has a -2 penalty to attack with it.
|
I'm actually confused as to what the OP is asking. Bear with me, I might be repeating some stuff and/or preaching to the choir.
Assuming a medium creature as the reference point:
A medium longsword is a one-handed weapon.
A medium short sword is a light weapon.
A small longsword is a light weapon with a -2 penalty.
A tiny greatsword is a light weapon with a -4 penalty.
A medium greatsword is a two-handed weapon.
A large long sword is a two-handed weapon with a -2 penalty.
A huge dagger is a two-handed weapon with a -4 penalty.
You can't use a small dagger because it is smaller than a light weapon.
You can't use a tiny long sword because it is more smaller than a light weapon.
You can't use a large greatsword because it is bigger than a two-handed weapon.
You can't use a huge long sword because it is bigger than a two-handed weapon.
The bastard sword is a corner case because it is entirely dependant upon whether or not you have the EWP feat. If you do, then you can use it as a two-handed weapon with a -2 penalty. If you don't, then you can't use it because it is bigger than a two-handed weapon.
Like bob bob bob said, this sounds like confusion carried over from those editions/versions where a small long sword did function as a short sword for a medium character. Pathfinder cleaned that muck all up. Weapons are what they are and must be appropriately sized for a character. It's very cut and dried now. Medium long swords don't function as great swords for small characters or any of that jazz; a long sword is a long sword, a short is a short sword etc. etc. and you incur the cumulative -2 for each size category difference between the character and the weapon.
Like bob bob bob said, this sounds like confusion carried over from those editions/versions where a small long sword did function as a short sword for a medium character. Pathfinder cleaned that muck all up. Weapons are what they are and must be appropriately sized for a character. It's very cut and dried now. Medium long swords don't function as great swords for small characters or any of that jazz; a long sword is a long sword, a short is a short sword etc. etc. and you incur the cumulative -2 for each size category difference between the character and the weapon.I don't think you can go beyond one size greater. Small can go to Medium, and Medium to Large.
You can. A creature can potentially wield a weapon designed for a creature 2 sizes bigger than him. (Huge light weapon is a Large one-handed is a Medium Two Handed weapon.)
You can wield a weapon any number of sizes smaller than you. So a Colossal creature can wield a dagger sized for a Fine-sized creature (though with a massive penalty).
I'm actually confused as to what the OP is asking. Bear with me, I might be repeating some stuff and/or preaching to the choir.
Assuming a medium creature as the reference point:
A medium longsword is a one-handed weapon.
A medium short sword is a light weapon.
A small longsword is a light weapon with a -2 penalty.
A tiny greatsword is a light weapon with a -4 penalty.
A medium greatsword is a two-handed weapon.
A large long sword is a two-handed weapon with a -2 penalty.
A huge dagger is a two-handed weapon with a -4 penalty.
You can't use a small dagger because it is smaller than a light weapon.
You can't use a tiny long sword because it is more smaller than a light weapon.
You can't use a large greatsword because it is bigger than a two-handed weapon.
You can't use a huge long sword because it is bigger than a two-handed weapon.The bastard sword is a corner case because it is entirely dependant upon whether or not you have the EWP feat. If you do, then you can use it as a two-handed weapon with a -2 penalty. If you don't, then you can't use it because it is bigger than a two-handed weapon.
That that's correct, although personally that I would argue that short sword to dagger (and vice versa) is a step itself once again due to damage, weight, and measurement being a similar step as between short and long sword. However when we get to those extremes I can agree that the weighting and balance difference is relatively minimal so they count as the same.
What I'm saying is that, due to weapons having their own size system (Light weapons being two size categories smaller than their intended wielder's size, One-handed being one size category smaller, and 2handed being the same size as the intended wielder) and the apparent use of this system (to an extent) with one of the Iconics, the system of treating a weapon as a different creature size (Large to medium) and a larger weapon category (1-handed to 2-handed) to counterbalance is already present and she still takes a -2 (that is explained as the unwieldiness of the sword) due to the original size of the weapon. If we were to apply this "exploit" to the difference of a medium creature wanting to slash with his short sword, it would be mostly the same procedure.
All of this is happening to a medium creature and nothing changes about him save for what his weapon is being treated as. His Weapon is a short sword sized for a medium creature, and therefore has a size itself of tiny. A long sword sized for a small creature (has exact same game statistics as a medium short sword save for damage type) has size of tiny as well therefore aside from the exact weight balancing of the weapon (I will get to that later). This change of size category for the intended wielder is counterbalanced by the change in wielding category (light, 1handed, 2handed) so the actual size category for the weapon itself stays tiny. As motioned a whole sentence ago, this new game mechanic view of the weapon (which itself never actually changes as just explained) just takes into account that "it now has a different intended wielder size so they wielder must take a -2 to hit" even though its the same weapon as before. What this -2 could represent instead is the improper balancing of the weapon to swing it for slash damage when its balanced for thrusting or vice versa. So in the end we have a Human swinging his short sword to chop at an enemy (because he feels like a slashing attack will be better than a stabbing attack)which makes perfect sense in real life to be able to do (albeit with a slight bit of extra difficulty) and in game mechanics he would be doing it with just a net -2 for size/awkwardness of intended swing and the different damage type.
This all makes sense baring any direct ruling (that I have not found) that prohibits this both in game and out of game on a real battle field.
P.S.
I just found out another use for this system, our lovable, mischievous party of gnomes and Halflings stumble across a Medium Long sword. The barbarian/fighter in the group can now wield it as a great sword (or bastard sword) with a -2 penalty because "the balancing isn't correct for it to be wielded by a small creature with two hands" until the get to Ye Old' Smithy and have it rebalanced to be a small great sword/bastard sword at the usual repair costs.
Like bob bob bob said, this sounds like confusion carried over from those editions/versions where a small long sword did function as a short sword for a medium character. Pathfinder cleaned that muck all up. Weapons are what they are and must be appropriately sized for a character. It's very cut and dried now. Medium long swords don't function as great swords for small characters or any of that jazz; a long sword is a long sword, a short is a short sword etc. etc. and you incur the cumulative -2 for each size category difference between the character and the weapon.I don't think you can go beyond one size greater. Small can go to Medium, and Medium to Large.You can. A creature can potentially wield a weapon designed for a creature 2 sizes bigger than him. (Huge light weapon is a Large one-handed is a Medium Two Handed weapon.)
You can wield a weapon any number of sizes smaller than you. So a Colossal creature can wield a dagger sized for a Fine-sized creature (though with a massive penalty).
Actually you cant go below a light weapon. So if our medium fighter picks up small dagger, he cant use it. A small dagger is Diminutive which is like a whole 3 inches, blade, hilt and all.
"If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all." You could just chalk that up to, its too small to effective grip and not give yourself a paper cut on.
AwesomenessDog, your small barbarian/fighter cannot wield a Medium Long Sword as a Great Sword (or Bastard Sword). Your small barbarian/fighter CAN wield a Medium Long Sword as a Medium Long Sword that requires two hands to wield and has a -2 attack bonus.
Unless you houserule it of course.
Note: It might be easier to understand what you are saying if you have smaller points (instead of "wall of text").
I just found out another use for this system, our lovable, mischievous party of gnomes and Halflings stumble across a Medium Long sword. The barbarian/fighter in the group can now wield it as a great sword (or bastard sword) with a -2 penalty because "the balancing isn't correct for it to be wielded by a small creature with two hands" until the get to Ye Old' Smithy and have it rebalanced to be a small great sword/bastard sword at the usual repair costs.
Why can't the barbarian/fighter just wield it as a long sword that's one size too big, at a -2 penalty? The only difference is that it's 1d8 instead of 1d10.
It seems like you're doing a whole lot of contortions for this idea, but I don't see any amazing benefit that would be worth it. Are you in a campaign where weapons are just not available at all (unless you find them) so you have to contort the rules to work around that?
(For the damage type, there's also a feat that lets you change damage type.)
If you want to implement this as a houserule, sure, but then you're going to need to rewrite large portions of the weapon section (and you'd be better off in the houserules forum). Off the top of my head a dagger is S or P but a longsword is S only and a shortsword is P only. A greatclub is a martial weapon despite the fact it's just a big club. Heavy crossbow has 50% more range than light crossbow but no other ranged weapons gain range by getting bigger. Ditto longbow and shortbow except the range is almost doubled.
As currently written, weapon sizes are a measure of who can use them. The system you're describing is 3.0, and I don't think any of it made it over to Pathfinder. I'm not seeing where you're getting that a medium longsword is tiny, for one.
The swords are the only thing this would apply to because, as far as I know, they are the only weapon "group" that follows the similarity of steps between "actual size categories."
Also I never said a medium long sword is tiny, a small long sword is though.
AwesomenessDog, your small barbarian/fighter cannot wield a Medium Long Sword as a Great Sword (or Bastard Sword). Your small barbarian/fighter CAN wield a Medium Long Sword as a Medium Long Sword that requires two hands to wield and has a -2 attack bonus.
Unless you houserule it of course.
Note: It might be easier to understand what you are saying if you have smaller points (instead of "wall of text").
Why can't the barbarian/fighter just wield it as a long sword that's one size too big, at a -2 penalty? The only difference is that it's 1d8 instead of 1d10.
Why can't the barbarian/fighter just wield it as a long sword that's one size too big, at a -2 penalty? The only difference is that it's 1d8 instead of 1d10.
You're missing the purpose of this: the end result is still a Medium creature using a short sword that's sized for him, with that long work around to do slashing damage but with a -2 to attack because he is having to treat it as a long sword (for the slashing damage) but a size too small (hence the minus -2) so that he isn't changing anything else about the weapon but damage type.
When it goes the other direction (it would be a small creature wielding a short sword for a medium creature), our small creature wants to wield it as a long sword (taking the -2 because it's "improperly weighted") and just takes a penalty until he gets it "rebalanced"
AwesomenessDog, because the rules do not state you can. A tiny greatsword (which is usable as a light weapon by a Medium creature) is still a greatsword.
You could house rule this of course.
Weapons for the wrong sized creature are balanced wrong their hilts are sized wrong etc.
Basically a longsword for a medium creature isn't shaped the same as a small bastard sword.
Or more simply size of the wielder has no effect on the weapon proficiency needed for the weapon.
I'm entirely with the OP, but it is completely a house rule. Talk to the DM.
I'm entirely with the OP, but it is completely a house rule. Talk to the DM.
I understand that this is great for a house rule, but I don't see a straight ruling on this in the already established rules. The rules say yes and no in a weird contradicting way. Which is why I put this up. If anyone has a previous ruling on this specifically (or has the authority to give one) please let me know.
Well drat, I didn't notice a "rules Questions" thread, moving this their now.
For the question on why short swords only do piercing... it was likely meant to be some kind of long stilletto or rondel (which where fairly popular in the late medieval/renaissance era). Those were thin blades that were meant to stab into the vulnerable areas on heavy armor (such as the eye holes, or under the armpit) as well as slip through the protective chainmail that would be worn underneath (and that bit stayed as protective gear during the renaissance after platemail stopped being such of a 'thing').
Because they were designed to focus so much on piercing, many examples simply lacked a cutting edge (and often, they would not be like flat blades, but more like a 3- 4 sided spike ).
Now, of course, the scope of settings have expanded since the D&D edition where the short sword got its damage type. And Paizo acknowledges that...by releasing the gladius. It is a light slashing/piercing weapon, and it basically a short sword. So much so, in fact, that it counts as a short sword for feats and abilities, such as weapon focus.
Also- yeah, I dislike that the longsword doesn't do piercing. That was a common use for them (I mean- it is a straight sword- that design is mean for shanking). Overall, that is due more to Hollywood perceptions (where people are more often cut than stabbed by rapiers as well) that got copied over early on, and just stayed there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't the barbarian/fighter just wield it as a long sword that's one size too big, at a -2 penalty? The only difference is that it's 1d8 instead of 1d10.You're missing the purpose of this: the end result is still a Medium creature using a short sword that's sized for him, with that long work around to do slashing damage but with a -2 to attack because he is having to treat it as a long sword (for the slashing damage) but a size too small (hence the minus -2) so that he isn't changing anything else about the weapon but damage type.
When it goes the other direction (it would be a small creature wielding a short sword for a medium creature), our small creature wants to wield it as a long sword (taking the -2 because it's "improperly weighted") and just takes a penalty until he gets it "rebalanced".
My example was a small fighter/barbarian wielding a medium long sword (1d8), so no, I didn't misunderstand your example.
What I don't understand is your point. What benefits would this system provide that justify making the rules so complicated?
Or more precisely, why would any character go through these contortions just to take -2 on attacks? Weapons are cheap and easy to come by. Why not just wield the correct-sized weapons with the damage type you want?
Or just take the feat that lets you change damage types?
(Note that Amiri and her oversized bastard sword is a corner case because it can do more damage than any medium-sized weapon but still be used as a medium two-handed weapon. And it's a sub-optimal, story-based choice that cost her an extra feat.)
The only purpose I can think of is to do with weapon-specific feats like weapon focus and weapon specialisation.
And frankly, I've become hugely confused by this whole discussion.