Small, Medium, Large Weapons?

[Shimrath]

Has anything been said "officially" about weapon sizes in 4E?

As i recall, i have read the following:

Someone stating something along the lines of "nobody said halflings weren't size small", hinting that small and medium sized characters might still exist in 4E, despite the "growth spurts" of the smaller races.

The listing for the warpick showing only a single damage score instead of two, perhaps hinting at the other direction.

Any other tidbits?

 

[frankthedm]

The listing for the warpick showing only a single damage score instead of two, perhaps hinting at the other direction.

Chances are small races are now enough of an anomally to no longer need to list their damage on the weapons table.

 

[Gloombunny]

Hell, maybe size is now just a flat modifier to weapon damage instead of something where you have to consult a table and pull out different dice. That would be neat.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Hell, maybe size is now just a flat modifier to weapon damage instead of something where you have to consult a table and pull out different dice. That would be neat.

I'm not sure that would play nice with the new crit rules of ignoring modifiers. If a giant deals, for example, 1d8+8 (+4 per size increase over Medium, or about half a d8) damage, his crits will be barely noticeable, for instance. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. It also creates a problem I have with 3e, that being that pretty soon the dice don't matter, and its all about modifiers. However, not having to look up the new damage on your dice after the fighter is enlarged, for example, would be a really really good thing. So, I'm torn!

 

[Abstraction]

The small size category never really fit in with the sizing scheme in 3.X. Going up from medium, creatures take up more squares and have greater reach. Going down from small, creatures take up fractions of a square and have zero reach. But small and medium creatures each take up one square and have a five-foot reach. It doesn't make sense.

I think what was called Small in 3.X should be a characteristic of Medium-sized creatures in 4E. So a Little Medium-sized creature would be on the lowest end of Medium and have certain bonuses and penalties applied but be a Medium creature in every other sense. You could even use that characteristic for other size frames. You could have a Little Giant. So, in other words, weapon damages do the same because halflings are medium sized, just little.

 

[TwinBahamut]

The small size category never really fit in with the sizing scheme in 3.X. Going up from medium, creatures take up more squares and have greater reach. Going down from small, creatures take up fractions of a square and have zero reach. But small and medium creatures each take up one square and have a five-foot reach. It doesn't make sense.

I think what was called Small in 3.X should be a characteristic of Medium-sized creatures in 4E. So a Little Medium-sized creature would be on the lowest end of Medium and have certain bonuses and penalties applied but be a Medium creature in every other sense. You could even use that characteristic for other size frames. You could have a Little Giant. So, in other words, weapon damages do the same because halflings are medium sized, just little.

I like this scheme. If nothing else, it gives a smoother scale up the size categories, which might help a bit. Maybe have bonuses for being large for your size category as well? Though that might add too much complication...

 

[Walking Dad]

I like this scheme. If nothing else, it gives a smoother scale up the size categories, which might help a bit. Maybe have bonuses for being large for your size category as well? Though that might add too much complication...

Is this a joke???

If not -> see the Powerful Build ability of the Half-Giants in the Psionic SRD .

 

[delericho]

The small size category never really fit in with the sizing scheme in 3.X. Going up from medium, creatures take up more squares and have greater reach. Going down from small, creatures take up fractions of a square and have zero reach. But small and medium creatures each take up one square and have a five-foot reach. It doesn't make sense.

You know, you're absolutely right. It's funny how you can play the game for years and never notice something that becomes so obvious once it's pointed out.

 

[frankthedm]

The small size category never really fit in with the sizing scheme in 3.X. Going up from medium, creatures take up more squares and have greater reach. Going down from small, creatures take up fractions of a square and have zero reach. But small and medium creatures each take up one square and have a five-foot reach. It doesn't make sense

You know, you're absolutely right. It's funny how you can play the game for years and never notice something that becomes so obvious once it's pointed out.

Small and medium are basically the same to allow for some transparency for the typical PC [small or medium]. Only once an atypical pc enters the mix [tiny or Large] is any notable difference seen.

Though if you look close at a DDM or Wotc-Chainmail fig you will notice small figures as are actually based as taking up 20mm. I actually like small critters taking up slightly less battlemat space, though to make use of that, you have to ditch the combat grid and measure distances instead.

 

[Irda Ranger]

The listing for the warpick showing only a single damage score instead of two, perhaps hinting at the other direction.

Any other tidbits?

I'm guessing it's a Medium weapon. A Small creature would either have to use it with two hands or at some penalty. There's no need for a Medium and Small damage modifier for each weapon that way.