D&D 3E/3.5 Will the 3.5e Weapon Size Rule Remain in 4e?

[shadow]

The change to weapon sizes was one of the most controversial aspects of 3.5e. No longer could a halfling pick up a human short sword to fight with (at least not without some major penalties). I remember the debates on this board when 3.5e came out. Some people liked the new rules and their "realism" while other people hated them. Will the weapon size rule remain in 4e? Should it remain in 4e?

 

[Erithtotl]

The change to weapon sizes was one of the most controversial aspects of 3.5e. No longer could a halfling pick up a human short sword to fight with (at least not without some major penalties). I remember the debates on this board when 3.5e came out. Some people liked the new rules and their "realism" while other people hated them. Will the weapon size rule remain in 4e? Should it remain in 4e?

I have to think it's gone. To me it was one of the strangest design decisions ever made for the D&D game. While so many things have moved toward abstraction and simplication, they suddenly introduce an over complicating rule that while it has some basis in reality, it was significantly less important than so many of the other things that had already abstracted out.

 

[frankthedm]

Well, realism was not WHY they stuck the -2 onto weapons not of your size. They did it because weapon proficiency did not account for the weapon’s size. The -2 for wrong size rule made sure Halfling rouges did not get the equivalent of long sword proficiency for free by snagging a human’s short sword and made sure no one grabbed a large version of a mace or morningstar to get a 2d6 two handed simple weapon.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The 3.5 version of the weapon size rules are very superior to the 3.0 version in any game in which you expect to have species of different sizes interacting frequently.

 

[Kobu]

I don't see a problem with keeping the size rules. It doesn't hurt anything--it doesn't slow down anything in the game or present any new issues as far as I can see. It just keeps giants from using long swords as normal daggers, etc.

 

[jasin]

I preferred the 3.0 rules (although I recall them as slightly obscure due to the fact that they emphasized how a Medium sword is actually a Small object...?) because I like the idea that hobbits can pick up normal daggers and use them as swords. If it's good enough for Tolkien, it's good enough for me.

But then, hobbits are long gone, and now so are gnomes, and all we've got left is D&D halflings, which can suck the -2 penalty for for all I care.

So I guess I'm weapon-size-ambivalent.

 

[gothmaugCC]

I hope htey go the way of the dodo. Comeon, a "small" spiked chain still haveinbg a 10' reach? Tell me how a 2.5 foot tall halfling sucessfully wields a 10' long chain in battle. There was nothing wrong with 3.0 with weapon sizes, players just had to use a bit of brains and common sense. 3.5 weapon size rules felt to me like WoTC felt we were too stupid to figure it out for ourselves.

Heh, well now you know one of my pet peeves

GOth

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I dislike the weapon sizes - they serve no purpose but to add a complication and make some treasure less useful. Perhaps a compromise for the "realism" fans? Masterwork weapons only grant their +1 to hit if the weapon was designed for a creature of your size?

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I think they shouldn't have any Small PC races, out the door.

Seriously, the Halflings are creepy-small.

I have a kid. She's not much smaller than the halflings are described to be.

She's not a functional combatant.

--fje

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I think they shouldn't have any Small PC races, out the door.

Seriously, the Halflings are creepy-small.

I have a kid. She's not much smaller than the halflings are described to be.

She's not a functional combatant.

--fje

She's also a child, not a fully grown adult of her species.

Take a 8 week old mastiff puppy and a 2 year old pug (one that isn't fat if you can find it). They probably weigh similar amounts and are around the same height, but their physical capabilites are completely different. Trying to base what one could accomplish physically on the other would be just plain silly.

I saw a similar "compare a halfing to a 2 year old" comment from a designer on the wizard's web site, unfortunately.