Made essentially a wish that asked for more weapons with the "small" property or at least more decently powered weapons that are not versatile so small characters can wield them.... needless to say i was VERY disappointed with the results. I think maybe 1 or 2 weapons of d8 or more was in there that small folk could use (though I can only think of the scourge) and not a single "small" weapon in sight.
They need love to. There is already halflings along with kobolds and goblins and gnomes, and the gnomes are being made into a full blown phb race Q_Q so please
Think of the little people! They are already gimped as it is with weapon selection and from what I hear so far their versatile weapons do not count as 2-h weapons for purposes of feats like power attack and so forth.
You can make any weapon small. Lowers it's damage dice by one step. Just like making it large increases it. That being said I think it would be cool to see some weapons designed specifically for small characters.
I don't think you can actually do that. Maybe I just missed that part. What page of what book are you looking at?
Made essentially a wish that asked for more weapons with the "small" property or at least more decently powered weapons that are not versatile so small characters can wield them.... needless to say i was VERY disappointed with the results. I think maybe 1 or 2 weapons of d8 or more was in there that small folk could use (though I can only think of the scourge) and not a single "small" weapon in sight.
Small is a keyword they created, pretty much just for the Shortbow. Its basically designed for weapons that are small, but still require two hands for some special reason.
They need love to. There is already halflings along with kobolds and goblins and gnomes, and the gnomes are being made into a full blown phb race Q_Q so please
Think of the little people! They are already gimped as it is with weapon selection and from what I hear so far their versatile weapons do not count as 2-h weapons for purposes of feats like power attack and so forth.
Do you know why they are gimped? Because being smaller makes you weaker. Period. A lot of power comes from mass, and its just not there for small races. So instead of wanting to do the same things that big folk do, play to your strengths. Use Light Blades or be implement users.
I don't think you can actually do that. Maybe I just missed that part. What page of what book are you looking at?
Huh. Seems you're right. According to the rules you can only make weapons bigger. Well than the PHB2 either needs to change that or we do, in fact, need small weapons.
Huh. Seems you're right. According to the rules you can only make weapons bigger. Well than the PHB2 either needs to change that or we do, in fact, need small weapons.
So, don't be a rule nazi about it...
I don't see the problemI don't think you can actually do that. Maybe I just missed that part. What page of what book are you looking at?
It's not actually in the book, but it makes enough sense that a PC would be able to do that. However, it'd be nice to see it officially added in so that you could buy "small" versions in the character builder.
Small is a keyword they created, pretty much just for the Shortbow. Its basically designed for weapons that are small, but still require two hands for some special reason.
This really makes me want to see someone hold a bow and pull back the string and take the arrow out of their quiver, all one handed.
As for the main topic, I would like to see some more weapons specifically designed for small characters since we have at least two small "core" pc races (halfling and gnome) and more on their way once they finally convert the kobold and goblin. Although, as long as they give us an official way to convert medium-size weapons into small weapons I don't think it'll be that big a deal.
Am I missing something?
I mean heck... kobolds grew by a whole foot and a half and now reach 4 feet... and they still get screwed!
"oh we're taking away your natural armor and size bonus to ac............ ok thats all for today. Oh and your weapon selection is cut in half just about.
kobold: B-b-but.. Q_Q
"You got shifty, now be happy and go cry in the corner"
Kobold: Please sir....I want some more e_e
"MORRRRRRE?" >_O
yes it's oliver twist but whatever, fits.
Here's a related question that's been bugging me: What are the benefits of being small? In 3.5e you did less damage but were harder to hit and you, in turn, found big targets easier to hit. In 4e there's bupkiss -- you're limited in weapon selection, your racial powers are more or less in line with the other races, and there's no other apparent benefit.
Am I missing something?
You're missing the fact that small races aren't suited to be strength-based melee fighters, and they shouldn't have to be made equal. Smaller guys have less leverage and mass.
That said, while the smaller size gives you relatively little (easier time getting cover/concealment is all I can think of...and thats only if you use logic, because a half wall is more cover to a halfling than it is to a human), but each small race has their "thing."
Most of their "things" are manueverability or avoiding attacks.
Halflings get +2 to avoid OAs, the ability to force a reroll when someone attacks them, a feat that gives them +2 AC when they're next to two bigger enemies (which is everyone), and a feat that helps them move around large+ enemies. They also get +2 to Acrobatics (a maneueverability thing), and +2 Thievery (a sneaky thing).
Kobolds get Shifty, which is far and away the best movement ability I've ever seen. Oh, and they lack an actual write-up so they'll certainly get more. Plus they get +2 to both Stealth and Thievery.
Gnomes get a racial ability to be extra stealthy, an encounter power that turns them invisible, a bonus to Stealth, and they also lack a full write-up.
I don't know, if you take a Bugbear and turn him into an Fey Pact warlock, you're doing it wrong. No different than when you take a halfling and try to make him a heavy fighter.
Edit: Although being of any other class sucks bad.
You're missing the fact that small races aren't suited to be strength-based melee fighters, and they shouldn't have to be made equal. Smaller guys have less leverage and mass.
I don't know, if you take a Bugbear and turn him into an Fey Pact warlock, you're doing it wrong. No different than when you take a halfling and try to make him a heavy fighter.
So why not go back to 2E then, and just say that Halflings can't be Fighters? Take away all the class options for them that they might not do so well at, because we don't want to think of a way to equalize the playing field. To me, that's archaic thinking.
I loved the simple fact that even though I wasn't as good as I could be, I could play a Half-Orc Sorcerer in 3E. I could take on that role and experience a new playstyle, even though I wasn't number-crunching it.
I agree, small races may not be suited to be strength-based melee fighters. But then, there should be an option to make them dexterity-based melee fighters (which, I think with Martial Power, the new two-weapon fighter build might do, or the rogue does at least).
All races and class should be made equal though. Note, that I didn't say the same. I said equal. One race can have strength in one area, and weakness in another. But the fact is, this is a game, and if you don't equalize the races and classes overall, then the game won't turn out well.
If I want to have a Bugbear Warlock, why not? Sure he might have penalties, and not be as good as another, but he shouldn't be penalized to the point where it's unplayable.
Right now, I think they should add more small weapons. And a benefit to small characters. I don't think sizing the weapons down by saying just reduce the dice damage makes sense either. Otherwise, you get into the problem in 3E, where it didn't matter whether the weapon was two-handed or not, you just scaled it to whatever size you wanted based upon the damage you desired.
Infact, why even make the races bigger by nearly double their size if you still want to call them small? Because in all honesty I still prefer the 2-2'5" foot kobolds over these taller ones. Thats just fluff reasons.
So yes I think at least some sort of option should be available to small characters to use larger weapons than currently available for them...
Like i have an old thread for a "playing kobolds" race issue for dragon I worked on, one racial feat was like those eldarin soldier, etc. feats for kobolds but with picks, it gave them proficiency but instead of a +1 damage it allowed them to use all picks as if they had the small property. So now they could use the d12 pick if they chose to. The fluff fit nicely and I never really heard any complaints on power creep since it actually more leveled the field if anything.
To 4e is about a level playing field, of course each race might be a LITTLE better at something than the others by a piddly +1 (due to +2 to key attributes), I find the mechanics difference between medium and small much worse than in 3e. At least in 3e you could have a bonus to hide and such along with a +1 ac, that would certainly help being a defender.
I think the racial powers are just MAYBE slightly stronger than other at-wills of the big races... but I certainly don't find the difference enough to warrant screwing over the little people.
I mean heck... kobolds grew by a whole foot and a half and now reach 4 feet... and they still get screwed!
"oh we're taking away your natural armor and size bonus to ac............ ok thats all for today. Oh and your weapon selection is cut in half just about.
kobold: B-b-but.. Q_Q
"You got shifty, now be happy and go cry in the corner"
Kobold: Please sir....I want some more e_e
"MORRRRRRE?" >_O
yes it's oliver twist but whatever, fits.
/thread
If you are Small you have the ability to move through a Large enemy's space and the ability to squeeze into smaller spaces at the DM's discretion. Some feats and abilities give additional benefits if the enemy is larger than you, which is obviously more frequent if you are Small.
At-Wills: Pressing Strike, Howling Strike
Encounter: Great Cleave (and with my mobility, the drawback is negligable), and Blade Sweep
Daily: Swift Panther Rage (only increasing an already impressive mobility)
Utility: Barbarian Great Leap.
Sure, Im doing slightly less damage than a medium character (with my 16 Str, and TH Battle Axe), but the mobility factor sure makes up for it.
I especially like the ability to shift upto 3 squares each (and every) turn without needing to take a move action, and upto 5 squares with a move action while raging.
Also, the race specific feats for halflings in the PHB are arguably stronger than options for most other races, especially as a melee character. We might have to wait for PHBII to see what's in store for gnomes.
Seriously. A longsword being used versatile-wise, without the +1 damage bonus... means you're dealing one damage less. Having to use a short sword instead of a longsword for your sword-and-board warlord... means you're dealing one damage less.
Come on. You can use a scimitar just as well as a human. You can use a rapier without an issue. And despite the dismissive attitude, you can use any off-hand weapon easily, and it still counts as off-hand for you, and the damage difference is still only one point.
I can see where there's probably a need for a Small double weapon, but other than that, is this really even an issue?
From my perspective, this is really looking like a lot of jumping up and down and shrieking "I DEMAND MY ONE POINT OF DAMAGE!"
Seriously. A longsword being used versatile-wise, without the +1 damage bonus... means you're dealing one damage less. Having to use a short sword instead of a longsword for your sword-and-board warlord... means you're dealing one damage less.
Come on. You can use a scimitar just as well as a human. You can use a rapier without an issue. And despite the dismissive attitude, you can use any off-hand weapon easily, and it still counts as off-hand for you, and the damage difference is still only one point.
I can see where there's probably a need for a Small double weapon, but other than that, is this really even an issue?
It's not quite that simple. If you want to use a two handed weapon, you are dropping from a Fullblade/Execution Axe/Mordenkrad to a Bastard Sword/Waraxe/Craghammer. If you're using a 1H weapon (because of the lack of good superior off hand weapons), you're going from a Bastard Sword/Waraxe/Craghammer to a Rapier/Scimitar/Short Sword.
In the former case, it's 1 damage lost for every [W] you deal, not 1 damage overall. In the latter case it can be quite a bit more.
It's not quite that simple. If you want to use a two handed weapon, you are dropping from a Fullblade/Execution Axe/Mordenkrad to a Bastard Sword/Waraxe/Craghammer.
Comparing a Craghammer to a Mordenkrad is... well, the 'krad is dealing 2d5+2 damage, which is 8 on average with weighting towards that value, while a craghammer brings down d8+2, which is average 6.5 with a flat distribution across all possible outcomes.
Yeah, the 'krad is a little better than "+1 damage", but only because multi-die weapons always deal a half-point more than equivalent single die weapons.
You have a point with the fullblade vs bastard sword, but the fullblade is unbalanced to start with (as has been noted in other threads). With d12 damage, +3 proficiency, AND high crit, it's two steps above both the greatsword and greataxe, while the other superior weapons are only one step above. That's a flaw in the weapon, not small characters.
The execution axe is fine compared to other axes; the reason it looks like a screw for the small characters is that the Waraxe lacks the "high crit" keyword. It's almost certain that this is a mistake, because every other axe in the game has it, and as written a waraxe is basically equivalent to a greataxe rather than being better (as one would require of a superior weapon).
If you're using a 1H weapon (because of the lack of good superior off hand weapons), you're going from a Bastard Sword/Waraxe/Craghammer to a Rapier/Scimitar/Short Sword.
As mentioned, the waraxe is actually weak to start with. But this argument doesn't make any sense. Scims and Short Swords aren't superior weapons! You have an extra feat if you're using them compared to a human fighter who carries a craghammer or bastard sword.
I understand that you're looking at "what can I get from a superior weapon" here, but sometimes it IS just the case that a particular race/class/build combination doesn't work as well. In this case, "small sword-and-board superior weapon user" isn't a particularly advantageous setup, I'll grant you. But since "small sword-and-board military weapon user" is pretty much fine, why the complaint?
In the former case, it's 1 damage lost for every [W] you deal, not 1 damage overall. In the latter case it can be quite a bit more.
Three to eight damage at high epic probably isn't going to be a big deal when most of the monsters have over 200 HP and some climb into four digits... and the eight is when you're blowing daily powers, anyway.
From my perspective, this is really looking like a lot of jumping up and down and shrieking "I DEMAND MY ONE POINT OF DAMAGE!"
Seriously. A longsword being used versatile-wise, without the +1 damage bonus... means you're dealing one damage less. Having to use a short sword instead of a longsword for your sword-and-board warlord... means you're dealing one damage less.
Come on. You can use a scimitar just as well as a human. You can use a rapier without an issue. And despite the dismissive attitude, you can use any off-hand weapon easily, and it still counts as off-hand for you, and the damage difference is still only one point.
I can see where there's probably a need for a Small double weapon, but other than that, is this really even an issue?
In My case, it's not a damage issue, it's a choice issue. I'd like to use a Heavy Blade for my character, because He'll never have the DEX for Light Blade Mastery, nor will he have the stats for any of the other Mastery feats, aside from Heavy Blade.
He also wants a shield, being a Bravura Warlord. AC is nifty.
What are my options, with this in mind?
None.
I'd like either a one-handed, non-versatile HB, or small versions of the Longsword/scimitar, etc.
You have a point with the fullblade vs bastard sword, but the fullblade is unbalanced to start with (as has been noted in other threads). With d12 damage, +3 proficiency, AND high crit, it's two steps above both the greatsword and greataxe, while the other superior weapons are only one step above. That's a flaw in the weapon, not small characters.
If you really want to go the route of trying to reverse engineer balancing parameters, it is two steps above the Greatsword (+3, d10) and one step above the Greataxe (+2, high crit, d12). If anything, the Greatsword is LESS powerful than it should be. You can also go from Fullblade to Execution Axe to Mordenkrad with an equal number of steps; they are all balanced against each other.
The execution axe is fine compared to other axes; the reason it looks like a screw for the small characters is that the Waraxe lacks the "high crit" keyword. It's almost certain that this is a mistake, because every other axe in the game has it, and as written a waraxe is basically equivalent to a greataxe rather than being better (as one would require of a superior weapon).
This makes no sense at all, given that there is a paragon tier feat which grants axes the high crit property, along with the fact that the other one handed axes (khopesh, battleaxe, throwing axe) also lack high crit. The advantage of a waraxe over a greataxe is that it can be wielded in one hand.
As mentioned, the waraxe is actually weak to start with. But this argument doesn't make any sense. Scims and Short Swords aren't superior weapons! You have an extra feat if you're using them compared to a human fighter who carries a craghammer or bastard sword.
I understand that you're looking at "what can I get from a superior weapon" here, but sometimes it IS just the case that a particular race/class/build combination doesn't work as well. In this case, "small sword-and-board superior weapon user" isn't a particularly advantageous setup, I'll grant you. But since "small sword-and-board military weapon user" is pretty much fine, why the complaint?
There is nothing advantageous about being a military weapon user over a superior weapon user. If I designed a class that had a racial feature that said "you are unable to train in superior weapons", would you consider that a racial bonus or a racial penalty? Even if for some reason it were worth that extra feat to use military weapons, Medium races would be just as effective at it as Small races at this, and in fact would have more options open to them.
Three to eight damage at high epic probably isn't going to be a big deal when most of the monsters have over 200 HP and some climb into four digits... and the eight is when you're blowing daily powers, anyway.
Three to eight damage overall might not be, but three to eight damage PER ATTACK certainly is.
I'd like either a one-handed, non-versatile HB, or small versions of the Longsword/scimitar, etc.
Scimitar actually fits the bill of what you're looking for. It's a heavy blade, non-versatile, and one handed. It's the weapon of choice for halfling paladins.
In My case, it's not a damage issue, it's a choice issue. I'd like to use a Heavy Blade for my character, because He'll never have the DEX for Light Blade Mastery, nor will he have the stats for any of the other Mastery feats, aside from Heavy Blade.
He also wants a shield, being a Bravura Warlord. AC is nifty.
What are my options, with this in mind?
None.
I'd like either a one-handed, non-versatile HB, or small versions of the Longsword/scimitar, etc.
Uh... what? You CAN use a Scimitar. In one hand, no less. Small characters use the same rules as everyone else, except they can't use two-hand weapons, and IF the weapon is versatile, they must use it two-handed. If the weapon isn't two handed or versatile, you can use it one handed with no limitations.
There's no issue there.
Edit: Oh, I see clem got there first. Oh well.
the fact that the other one handed axes (khopesh, battleaxe, throwing axe) also lack high crit.
You know, I sat there and stared at that list and couldn't find the battleaxe? I must be going blind.
There is nothing advantageous about being a military weapon user over a superior weapon user.
There's nothing penalizing about it either. It's one less option for what to do with a feat, that's all. That's kinda my point -- if there is no good superior option for a particular race-class-build combination, that doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with the superior weapon list.
Three to eight damage overall might not be, but three to eight damage PER ATTACK certainly is.
The upper end of that scale is on daily powers that you can't use more than once anyway. The relative value of those three to eight at 30th level is about the same as the value of 1 to 3 damage at 3rd level. Which was my point -- saying, "It's one point now, but it'll be more later!" doesn't really cut it because monster HP advances at just about the same rate.
You know, I sat there and stared at that list and couldn't find the battleaxe? I must be going blind.
There's nothing penalizing about it either. It's one less option for what to do with a feat, that's all. That's kinda my point -- if there is no good superior option for a particular race-class-build combination, that doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with the superior weapon list.
The upper end of that scale is on daily powers that you can't use more than once anyway. The relative value of those three to eight at 30th level is about the same as the value of 1 to 3 damage at 3rd level. Which was my point -- saying, "It's one point now, but it'll be more later!" doesn't really cut it because monster HP advances at just about the same rate.
I agree in principle; I don't think playing small characters is unbalanced, and I think the itemization is fine for two-handed weapons. For one-handed weapons though, str-based small characters are really hurting. You are either losing two damage die sizes, a damage die size and +1 attack, or you are using a light blade which you'll be unable to qualify for the mastery feat for. There really should be +3/d8 (non-light blade) and +2/d10 off-hand weapons in the superior category.
I just get irritated when I see phrases like "gimped" and "worthless" used to describe a "missing weapon" that might be nice -- but is hardly required.
Oh, and I can see that totally. I understand where there are some holes in the weapon list; that's what future PHBs and supplements are for, after all.
I just get irritated when I see phrases like "gimped" and "worthless" used to describe a "missing weapon" that might be nice -- but is hardly required.
I have to Concur, and PHBII isn't that far from release, so with luck.
And, I totally forgot about the Scimitar...
Wow... I need to reread that section again.
So what, if you are dealing a few less points of damage. Damage isnt the only factor in what makes a good character. Sometimes other factors are more important to you (such as mobility or stealth).
So what, if you are dealing a few less points of damage. Damage isnt the only factor in what makes a good character. Sometimes other factors are more important to you (such as mobility or stealth).
And sometimes damage isn't the factor people are looking at.
Most of us aren't looking at this for optimization reasons, after all.
Variety could be a reason, too.
As I said... Ive yet to see a Medium Character have the mobility of a Kobold Barbarian who has taken the mobility At-Wills/Rages.
So what, if you are dealing a few less points of damage. Damage isnt the only factor in what makes a good character. Sometimes other factors are more important to you (such as mobility or stealth).
I think it's worth noting here that the designers stated that if/when Kobolds get a player race entry, they will be significantly changing (read: reducing the power of) Shifty.
I think it's worth noting here that the designers stated that if/when Kobolds get a player race entry, they will be significantly changing (read: reducing the power of) Shifty.
not necessarily REDUCING it's power but maybe changing it entirely. If they just change it to a encounter power then it becomes a really sucky racial power. And if they did I would demand a second power ontop of that.
I wouldn't mind if they made it perhaps a little restricted or something...example:
shifty: at-will, minor action, shift 1 square. cannot be used if adjacent to 2 or more enemies.
The above still lets you dance around a single enemy.
or a restriction like: must be adjacent to an enemy to use.
this restriction takes away that supposed "+1 to speed" that people say kobolds have since they can move then shift.
not necessarily REDUCING it's power but maybe changing it entirely. If they just change it to a encounter power then it becomes a really sucky racial power. And if they did I would demand a second power ontop of that.
They might make it "move action: shift two squares" or some such thing. That would retain the idea of being able to shift better than most, while not letting them have quite the same level of maneuverability they have right now.