Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 magus_stragus Jun 30, 2009 21:23:33	Ok, I just had this thought: if two characters have the same Strength score, they are considered to have the same strength, regarding of their size, isn't it? So, a halfling with 15 Strength is as strong as a human with 15 Strength, and stronger than a Minotaur with 14 Strength, is it not? So, why should they be penalized with the weapons they use, if it's the Strength score, not the size, the one which determines the character physical strength? So, taking into account that, I designed a system to determine if a character can or not wield a weapon, without regard of size and the like. Any character can use any weapon, as long as its Strength score (not the modifier) is equal or higher than the weapon's weight. Simple and logical. A character can be able to lift with its body tons of weight, but swinging something with your arms is totally different. I can carry 150 pounds with my whole body, but I'm sure as hell that I can't swing a metal stick weighting more than 40 pounds freely. So, what do you think of that? I can see two problems: first, weapons with the small property would be useless; and second, wouldn't it be quite funny to see a gnome carrying in its back a sword larger than itself? :D
#2 Janx_14 Jun 30, 2009 22:18:48	I believe its more the ability to wield it correctly rather than lack of strength, swords only get so large before they are awkard to wield.
#3 AaronOfBarbaria Jun 30, 2009 22:25:04	I believe its more the ability to wield it correctly rather than lack of strength, swords only get so large before they are awkard to wield. I believe this is the exact reasoning - you want a real world basis for it: compare how long you can comfortably hold a 4 or 5 pound object (a full gallon of milk is a good tester) with your arm at a relaxed position to how long you can comfortably hold that same object with your arm extended in front of you and parallel to the floor - there is a significant difference. The same holds true when the object you are holding has it's weight distributed in different ways - holding a 4lb canon ball in your hand and moving your arm about is a massively different feeling to holding a 3 foot long object by one end despite it weighing the same 4lbs. It is a matter of leverage, and not actual strength.
#4 magus_stragus Jun 30, 2009 22:44:12	I know that, but, how much of a weight does a weapon represents to a character? Let's say, a character with average Strength score (10) can carry 100 lbs as a normal load. If we suppose that a character can carry with its arms just 1/4 of that load (25 lbs), he should have no problem whatsoever wielding any weapon at all. Or, if we want to make it more real, small characters can use two-handed weapon (as long as they follow the rule posted in the first post), but they can't use weapons with the reach property. How about that?
#5 bone_naga Jun 30, 2009 22:58:05	Or, if we want to make it more real, small characters can use two-handed weapon (as long as they follow the rule posted in the first post), but they can't use weapons with the reach property. How about that? I don't see how a kobold or gnome running around with a fullblade but can't use a polearm is "more real". Granted, discussions of realism in D&D always end in "but it has magic and dragons". However, like any good story it requires suspension of disbelief, which only works if it is internally consistent. I don't see how that rule achieves that. Of course, that isn't to say it won't work for your group, but that's just my two cents. Now if you're going for an anime feel, then it works just fine, or if you're going for comic effect (I once allowed a 2 foot tall forest gnome in 2e to wield a bastard sword because he had 18 strength. We all knew it was ridiculous, but everyone loved it, plus we were willing to suspend disbelief for the rare case of a gnome who was stronger than most humans, orcs, or dwarves). If you're trying to go for actual realism, then leverage has much more to do with it than weight. Not to mention most real swords were pretty light, and it wouldn't take much at all for any character to meet those requirements. I'd suggest either forsake the rules for small characters entirely in the name of fun and balance or keep them as is. Trying to halfway lift the restriction just comes off as...odd. Actually, one rule I am considering, to give them a small boon, is to grant small characters an extra +1 proficiency bonus when wielding a weapon in two hands. It helps compensate somewhat for their damage gimp, but doesn't give free bonuses to characters like rogues, that the two-handed weapon rule wouldn't have affected anyways.
#6 magus_stragus Jul 01, 2009 7:22:08	You know what? I guess I will just go with giving small characters +1 to AC (or Reflex, and maybe an extra +1 to attacks), and let them use only small-sized weapons (this is, weapons with a damage dice one category lower). A halfling can use a small fullblade, but it's damage dice is 1d10. Would that be more balanced? I really want to deal with the issue of being small in 4e.
#7 darquing Jul 01, 2009 12:22:48	That sounds very much like the 3.5E rules for small characters.
#8 Ka_D-Argo Jul 01, 2009 13:38:11	I don't know if 4th Edition has a version of the Monkey Grip Feat or not, but you'd probably be better off using something like that and weapon size categories. As others said, it has less to do with the weight of the sword and more to do with how that weight is balanced.
#9 Einlanzer Jul 01, 2009 14:54:19	I believe its more the ability to wield it correctly rather than lack of strength, swords only get so large before they are awkard to wield. Yes, that's part of it. The other part is the subtle implication in 4e that strength isn't measured in an objective way. I.e. i would argue that a halfling with 14 strength is actually not as as strong as a human with 14 strength. It makes no sense for a Halfling to be as strong as a minotaur, it's an abstraction representing athleticism, not brute power.
#10 Crimson_Concerto Jul 01, 2009 18:12:21	Here is how you fix Small size in 4E: BEING SMALL Small characters follow most of the same rules as Medium ones, with the following exceptions. ✦ You can’t use two-handed weapons, such as greatswords and halberds. ✦ When you use a versatile weapon, such as a longsword, you must use it two-handed, but you don’t deal additional damage for doing so. Done. Fixed. Problem Solved. Really, the small size weapon restrictions and limitations are a terrible idea that specifically run against that 4E racial design philosophies that every race should be able to perform competently as member or any class and that no race should ever get penalties. With those philosophies in mind, this fix makes the most sense. It was completely illogical to assume that small size creatures who create their own clothes and armor wouldn't create their own weapons, so lets let them create their own smaller versions of all weapons. From there, just let them do the same damage with those weapons as medium creatures would do using the same logic that was used to give them an attack bonus last edition, a change in accuracy as it relates to perspective.
#11 Crimson_Concerto Jul 01, 2009 18:24:26	You know what? I guess I will just go with giving small characters +1 to AC (or Reflex, and maybe an extra +1 to attacks), and let them use only small-sized weapons (this is, weapons with a damage dice one category lower). A halfling can use a small fullblade, but it's damage dice is 1d10. Would that be more balanced? No, that is not more balanced. In fact, that's a terrible idea for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that you're still giving small characters a racial penalty, which is explicitly contrary to the declared 4E racial design philosophies. And beyond that, think about who you're actually hurting and helping by doing this: A) Halflings and Gnomes who actually want to wield weapons are hurt by this because instead of fixing the problem, you're just giving them what they want but making them suck at it. And yes, one die size is enough to make a very big difference when you're talking 5[W] and 7[W] values. That's the same reason that Oversized is considered too powerful on a PC race, and so your idea is likewise makes them very underpowered. B) Then look at Halfling and Gnome Rogues, which are specifically being penalized at their striker role by giving up a damage die of power when before they had no such penalty compared to medium creatures (and indeed they were the only weapon class without such a penalty). C) Now look at Halfling casters. They don't have to deal with the supposedly "balancing" current weapon restrictions and limitations at all, which is exactly why the idea of balancing bonuses with penalties just doesn't work; people will create characters which can take advantage of the bonuses but don't care about the penalties. This is exactly what was done back in 3.5 with racial ability score modifiers, and this is exactly what was supposed to be thrown out this edition for that very reason. Effectively, all your idea above would do is give caster Halflings and caster Gnomes a +1 bonus to AC, Reflex, and attack rolls. They wouldn't take any penalty at all.
#12 Einlanzer Jul 01, 2009 19:46:02	I've talked about this before, but part of the reason that I actually like the rules as written (I'm not a fanboy- plenty of 4e I have complaints about) is because of the style of usage. 2 handed weapons emphasize power and force over speed and precision, which will put anyone with a small build at a comparative disadvantage. Take as an example an average man vs. an average woman: On the whole, women are competitive with men at fencing. However, swap the rapiers for 2 handed axes and you've created a severe problem for the woman. Even if you scale the 2 handed axe down in size to make it more manageable for her, you still create a situation where she's forced to throw her weight and power against his (due to the way the weapon must be wielded), which probably won't work out well for her if her opponent is male. With a rapier, she minimizes her weakness (power) while utilizing her strengths (technique and speed), which is likely to be much more to her advantage.
#13 Rustmonster Jul 01, 2009 19:53:24	On the whole, women are competitive with men at fencing. However, swap the rapiers for 2 handed axes and you've created a severe problem for the woman. Even if you scale the 2 handed axe down in size to make it more manageable for her, you still create a situation where she's forced to throw her weight and power against his (due to the way the weapon must be wielded), which probably won't work out well for her if her opponent is male. With a rapier, she minimizes her weakness (power) while utilizing her strengths (technique and speed), which is likely to be much more to her advantage. What does gender have to do with this? Are you suggesting that females also be given a weapon restriction?
#14 Einlanzer Jul 01, 2009 19:57:22	What does gender have to do with this? Are you suggesting that females also be given a weapon restriction? Do I really have to answer this? Clearly, it was a real world analogy to help illustrate the rules.
#15 Crimson_Concerto Jul 01, 2009 19:59:42	Do I really have to answer this? Clearly, it was a real world analogy to help illustrate the rules. But as we all know, women in D&D aren't penalized for certain fighting styles, so your analogy actually works against you. If the game doesn't care about the differences in fighting techniques between men and women, there's no reason it should need to make other such concessions when inappropriate for the game, specifically in this scenario between medium and small size.
#16 Einlanzer Jul 01, 2009 20:04:30	But as we all know, women in D&D aren't penalized for certain fighting styles, so your analogy actually works against you. If the game doesn't care about the differences in most beneficial fighting techniques between men and women, there's no reason it should need to make other such concessions when inappropriate for the game. That's only because sex differences are minimized to fluff due to the scale having to fit a myriad of different creatures. It all makes perfect sense to me.
#17 Crimson_Concerto Jul 01, 2009 20:10:33	That's only because size differences are minimized to fluff due to the scale having to fit a myriad of different creatures. It all makes perfect sense to me. Exactly. ;)
#18 magus_stragus Jul 01, 2009 20:59:37	Ok, I'll go with Crimson_Concerto's way. Really, it makes sense. If halflings can create their own stuff, how come they can't create their own weapons? But, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't small races designed to have a small advantage (like more powerful race features) regarding other classes due to their size penalties?
#19 Crimson_Concerto Jul 01, 2009 22:31:16	But, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't small races designed to have a small advantage (like more powerful race features) regarding other classes due to their size penalties? Not really. That may have been the intent, but it really just didn't work out that way. This is largely due to the fact that all of the penalties small size characters get only affect weapon-using characters. They have no effect at all on implement-using characters. If it were true that the penalties were there to counterbalance other more powerful racial traits, then small characters who were implement-users and thus not subject at all to the small size weapon penalties would be considered overpowered, but they're not. :P
#20 AaronOfBarbaria Jul 01, 2009 22:48:42	But, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't small races designed to have a small advantage (like more powerful race features) regarding other classes due to their size penalties? That is one of the areas where a severe debate can begin. Is it "fair" to reduce the high-end of a small race's damage potential with a weapon, and remove the ability to wield most reach weapons in exchange for racial abilities that may be "better" than medium races? encounter power that forces re-roll of successful enemy attack, +2 AC against opportunity attacks, and the option to spend a feat for a +2 AC when adjacent to 2 or more adjacent enemies - to me, this seems a fair trade... to others, it probably doesn't since all it really does is say "weapon using Halflings are supposed to be defense focused, not damage focused." Gnomes and other small races... well... I have never liked many of them, and I actually dislike gnomes... so that might be part of why I see nothing wrong with the way small characters are handled - but some Fade Away, Reactive Stealth and the option to take Shadow Skulk seems like a fair trade for some damage and reach potential to me... probably not to others though. If you ask me, complaining about small characters not getting two-handed weapons like medium characters do is a lot like complaining that Dragonborn are better Sorcerers than they are Wizards - since really all it means is that small characters tend to be better at one sort of weapon using style (sword and board for instance) than another (two-handed weapons). The fact that they can't use most reach weapons, I think that is fairly balanced with a medium creature's inability to crawl through small spaces/walk under certain monsters.
#21 magus_stragus Jul 01, 2009 23:09:21	Well, you have a point there. Geez, I'm so confused right now!
#22 Crimson_Concerto Jul 01, 2009 23:09:25	...the option to spend a feat for a +2 AC when adjacent to 2 or more adjacent enemies... ...the option to take Shadow Skulk... FSBNNR :P Feats don't balance races. It's unrelated. If you ask me, complaining about small characters not getting two-handed weapons like medium characters do is a lot like complaining that Dragonborn are better Sorcerers than they are Wizards - since really all it means is that small characters tend to be better at one sort of weapon using style (sword and board for instance) than another (two-handed weapons). This is a completely flawed analogy. Races being better at some things than other things is fine, and that's not at all what this is about. What it's about is that small size is the only racial trait that actually imposes a penalty. A penalty that isn't balanced and isn't warranted. And it's not even the normal type of penalty like a "-2 to wielding pole arms". It's an outright restriction, they're totally prevented and barred from trying it. You will not find such a thing on your Dragonborn Wizard. It's not like Dragonborn can't wield wands or something. The fact that they can't use most reach weapons, I think that is fairly balanced with a medium creature's inability to crawl through small spaces/walk under certain monsters. No, not being able to use reach weapons isn't balanced by anything and shouldn't be balanced by anything, because as I've already mentioned, balancing bonuses with penalties is a flawed system. It shouldn't be done unless it just cannot be avoided. Being able to crawl through small er spaces is balanced by not being able to reach the top shelf and being able to move under large creatures is balanced by not being able to move over tiny creatures. These are acceptable because they are not avoidable and they do not particularly benefit or penalize any specific build or character type. They are neutral characteristics. Not much more is required to differentiate small size from medium size than that...
#23 Fireclave Jul 02, 2009 1:03:19	FSBNNR :P Feats don't balance races. It's unrelated. This is a completely flawed analogy. Races being better at some things than other things is fine, and that's not at all what this is about. What it's about is that small size is the only racial trait that actually imposes a penalty. A penalty that isn't balanced and isn't warranted. And it's not even the normal type of penalty like a "-2 to wielding pole arms". It's an outright restriction, they're totally prevented and barred from trying it. You will not find such a thing on your Dragonborn Wizard. It's not like Dragonborn can't wield wands or something. No, not being able to use reach weapons isn't balanced by anything and shouldn't be balanced by anything, because as I've already mentioned, balancing bonuses with penalties is a flawed system. It shouldn't be done unless it just cannot be avoided. Being able to crawl through small er spaces is balanced by not being able to reach the top shelf and being able to move under large creatures is balanced by not being able to move over tiny creatures. These are acceptable because they are not avoidable and they do not particularly benefit or penalize any specific build or character type. They are neutral characteristics. Not much more is required to differentiate small size from medium size than that... QFT. I wish I had something novel to add, but Crim has it covered.