What sort of Weapons would Haflings realistically use? Same for other small races like Kobolds, goblins, gnomes...

Slings, canes, knives, hoes, shovels, scythes, pitchforks, maybe swords and that sort of thing if a family had a history of adventurers who passed heirlooms on.

Came here to post this.

Stuff that requires a lot less reach or physical strength, or plays up the fact that they're so much shorter that other races.

I figure things like slings, blowpipes, maybe even atlatls for particularly large targets in regards to ranged combat.
For melee, polearms, especially the kind like ranseurs or hooked weapons to take advantage of easy hits on the legs of larger races. Also probably lots of snares and wires to trip them up. Hobbits with chain weapons like kusarigama would be horrifying to larger species.

They use shortstacks to seduce larger protectors for their lands.

Actually, they do. Halflings have the same strength in 5e as anyone else, and are only slightly weaker [on a bell curve] in Pathfinder.

Halflings are ridiculously strong for their size. A Chimpanzee is about 4 feet tall [compared to a Hobbit's 3] and weighs between 80-130 lbs [compared to a Halfling's 40]. A Chimp is faster and stronger then a human being, due to its lifestyle, but a Halfling, while not quite as extreme due to being fully bipedal and not a climbing race, clearly exhibits the same principles.

They are only a few MPH slower then a human, and only slightly weaker. A Halfling in 5e has an average strength of 10, in PF 8, enough to lift 150 lbs in 5e and 60 lbs in PF]

If physically trained, as expected of a melee combatant those numbers become [at 14 STR] 210 in 5e and 131 in PF.

That strength is packed into about the same volume as a 4 year old. In short, the stereotypical image of a halfling hiding in the shadows then leaping at someone with a knife is a HORRIFYING reality.

The Halfling's lack of strength penalty in 5e is offset by the fact that Small creatures have disadvantage with Heavy Weapons and have to use Versatile ones with two hands.

There's clearly a lack of ability to use larger weapons well there, and that includes the likes of Longbows, Warhammers, and some spears I believe.

In real life, Spears would make the most sense if they had to be in melee, but Longspear + Shield isn't a thing in 5e anyway.

Halfings are probably best off using Slings or Crossbows, using their small stature to more easily hide, lob a volley, and then use their nimble nature to get away and repeat it. This fits well, as Halfling's aren't usually conquerers or engaged in open warfare, but instead or going to be farmers or simple folk who mainly need weapons for hunting or defense against bandits. For that, something as cheap and simple as a knife and a sling works perfectly.

If they did have to fight in open warfare, you would want like blocks with shields defending shortbow archers. Alternatively, if you're in Eberron, the Archers can ride Pterodactyls and just fuck up everyone.

Pike, Halibuts, maybe even trout or other fish.

>slings
>simple

SLINGS REQUIRED EXTENSIVE TRAINING TO USE THEY WERE EASY TO MAKE BUT HARD TO USE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Small races should just wear heavy armor, both to protect them against attacks from bigger races as well as to protect them when bigger races swing them to make attacks.

>polearms
Yep.
Spears and numbers.
A weapon that compensates for reach and let's them fight in closed ranks to compensate for a lack of individual strength.

That'd make sense on a cultural level.

For an adventurer?
Maybe light crossbow with a loading mechanism like windlass or goatsfoot.
Rapier style blade or a scaled down armingsword.
Perhaps spear again allowing the halfling to stay close to and assist other warrior companions.

So that's how manlets look so swole...

Also a 130cm English rapier for shits and gigs.

Tiger traps
Human mercenaries

>Not having your kobolds form a mini tercio to make what would be a piss easy fight to win into a legitimate struggle

Clearly seduction.

Wat are you say
Go make one and play around with it, it's not that hard to hit something.
A bow (martial weapon) takes fucking YEARS to develop the musculature needed to use it effectively, a sling (or a shepherd's staff, that's even easier to use) is just twirl and shoot.

BTW, remember the Kenders? Fucking Kenders? Their odd weapon was a shepherd's sling, strudy and pointy enough to work as a spear. That's what halflings would use, a ranged weapon that doubles (triples?) as a walking stick and polearm.

Shotguns, but poorly handled. Mostly they wave them ineffectually in their while screaming in an incomprehensibly thick accent to get away from their sheep.

only the biggest, baddest swords and axes capable of chopping clean through a horse and its-
>realistically
oh
well, spears, polearms, thrusting weapons, anything with a long reach to make up for their size disadvantage.
they'd likely spend more time preparing their chosen battlefields with traps and tunnels beforehand too, to make use of their smaller size. some amount of guerilla tactics.

as for ranged weapons, they'd use weapons that can be good irrespective of your actual strength or act as very good levers - slings, crossbows, atlatls, etc.
with that in mind, guns would become very popular with short races very fast, as they'd allow for a disproportionate amount of damage compared to their other weapons.

kobolds with muskets are always pretty fun, and i can see a halfling lugging about a blunderbuss that knocks him onto his arse every time he fires

Definetly Spears and Quarterstaves.
Maybe Shortsword+Shields.

And crossbows.

Like all smaller races from dwarves to Kobolds.

Meanwhile Elves would be best at using swords and halberds due to incresed coordination.

Orcs would be better archers.

I love how accounting for the physiology of races reverses tropes with Elves being OP in melee and not being able to swim due to increased muscle density (they are slender but have the same average strenght as humans), Orcs being simply better at archery because greater draw-weight and their favoured melee weapons would probably be maces, Dwarves and the other shorties have to adapt polearms due to height difference towards other races etc.

Wouldn't elves be equally OP in range due to their human-level strength combined with better eyesight and coordination?

...

Aiming with a bow doesn't take a lot of coordination but requires a lot of strenght.

Well in conquest of Elysium they use Coil spring guns (however those work) and ride large hogs to battle.

Archery Fag here, I was able to reliably hit stationary targets at 20 meters after maybe two weeks of training with a 45 lb draw recurve, and maybe another three to four weeks for moving targets.

The only reason it took "years" to become combat ready with bows is because those insane brits and their longbows and mandatory training skewed the results.

No worse than humans, then. Plus, better eyesight still.

Your bow was a light hunting bow, nothing more.
Medieval composites had a draw weight of
about 180lbs, Roman era were probably around half that, and people were firing them fast.
There was a time when hitting a target wasn't even an issue, they'd just aim at the MARKER and volley-fire along the other guys.

>But guys, mah bow is as good as a war bow! Dunno what those English idiots were thinking.

A warbow had a draw well over 100 lbs. They were quite different from yours. And, of course, you're using a light-weight target arrow. That's all wrong too. No, for war you want the heaviest bastards you can get, to pierce armor and all that. Further, English longbows would routinely fire 100 - 300 meters away. They were "accurate" up to around 80, which is why they had masses of archers all firing in the same direction instead of one guy trying and failing to be a sharpshooter.

Except we aren't talking about volley fire here. We're talking about "proficiency". Furthermore, if a 40 - 50 lb bow is enough to hunt deer, it's enough to put down a person.

My "light hunting bow" would be the equivalent of a shortbow in D&D, and, funnily enough, my "range of accuracy" also lines up with range increments that that D&D puts it at, except for D&D 5E where it is 24.3 meters. As funnily enough, D&D 5E also makes shortbows a simple ranged weapon.

It's almost as if I specifically mentioned my particular skillset as if I knew what I was talking about.

A you realize you can make bows with less draw correct?
I'm sure an English longbowman would have 16 str to go with that +3 composite longbow. But they were the extreme end of the draw range for bows.
Proficiency is the ability to use the weapon, so if you can use a long bow you have proficiency, the str thing comes from stats and has nothing to do with proficiency.
Also if you want to talk history don't jump to the extreme end of the spectrum with the atypical bow that warped your skeleton from repeated use.

>I'm sure an English longbowman would have 16 str
Then you're deluded. MAYBE 12. An English longbowman would still be a warrior, a 0 (or perhaps 1st) level NPC, utterly unexceptional. 16 str is the stuff of Conan and pals.

Likely spears, but I wouldn't expect to find them serving in any major armies.
Being smaller and having less body mass is a handicap in melee combat, no matter how you put it.

If they really had to, they'd form militias armed with whatever is at hand, but they would likely avoid conflicts as much as possible since they would get destroyed by bigger races in open warfare.
That's the same reason women weren't normally seen in conventional armies.
Combat pushes people to their limits and if your army is on average weaker than the enemy's, it'll lose 9/10 times unless they can compensate somehow.

Stat block for a standard city guard
>Str 14, Dex 11, Con 13, Int 9, Wis 10, Cha 8

An English longbowman was stronger then an average town guard due to the obscene draw on their bow.
16 is completely reasonable.

The better eyesight only means they get to shoot you at night.

Meanwhile good body coordination and senses are most important in melee combat.
Elves are perfectly designed for melee combat.

Now only if they didn't have such a low breeding rate.

>due to its lifestyle
Nope. Chimps are naturally stronger than humans.

Weapons with long reach,
Weapons with small draw length.

The only problem here is that they are weaker than dwarfs. Dwarfs should never ever use axes because their physiology puts them at a disadvantage. Long swords and halberds, polearms are much better. Crossbows and metal bows too. There was an eceleb neckbeard discussing this on youtube, and he had quite good opinions but I dont bookmark ecelebs because I hate their trade.

Blowguns with poisoned darts. Nets. Spears.

Also whatever humans used to hunt things larger than them.

>metal bows
What the fuck are metal bows?

>due to its lifestyle
Humans have disproportionately small forelimbs, compared to other apes. With their much larger arms, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans all have amazing upper-body strength in comparison to humans.

I think it has more to do with more densely packed, heavier muscles.

What makes you think using crossbows and ranged weapons would not be realistic?

If you fought someone two times taller than you, would you pick up a large knife or would you pick up a gun and shoot from afar? Considering halflings and gnomes are good artificers/inventors, they would probably win those wars using superior ranged weapons and siege engines.

Don't we also have freakishly long legs compared to other apes, for obvious reasons?