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

[HeapThaumaturgist]

But dogs are not humanoids. There's completely different assumptions of musculature at work there. Notice that most small dogs are STOUT dogs. That and many small-breed dogs are probably closer to the results of dwarfism in humans. A friend of mine had a few small dogs and they were very prone to health issues and joint problems earlier in life because of the breeding required to get them that small.

Dwarves I can see, as they're described as generally shorter than humans but broad and bulky.

The slender and tiny halflings we see depicted, however, just kind of creep me out in a funny sort of way. If they were compact and almost as broad as they are tall, well, they wouldn't be as cute but I could maybe see one with a tiny halberd.

But then they'd be itty bitty dwarves.

--fje

 

[IanB]

But dogs are not humanoids. There's completely different assumptions of musculature at work there. Notice that most small dogs are STOUT dogs. That and many small-breed dogs are probably closer to the results of dwarfism in humans. A friend of mine had a few small dogs and they were very prone to health issues and joint problems earlier in life because of the breeding required to get them that small.

Dwarves I can see, as they're described as generally shorter than humans but broad and bulky.

The slender and tiny halflings we see depicted, however, just kind of creep me out in a funny sort of way. If they were compact and almost as broad as they are tall, well, they wouldn't be as cute but I could maybe see one with a tiny halberd.

But then they'd be itty bitty dwarves.

--fje

Small dogs actually tend to have much longer lifespans than large dogs, actually, but looking at the extremes of the dog size spectrum isn't really useful because those dogs (on both ends) tend to be sort of deformed from the 'natural' dog shape.

Take a schnauzer vs. a golden retriever puppy instead. The schnauzer will kick that puppy's ass every time.

 

[jonrog1]

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

As far as you KNOW, my friend. As far as you KNOW. Just .... keep an eye on her.

 

[Nifft]

I kinda liked the 3.0e rules for weapon size. It meant that I'd have a more plausible excuse to put a (human-compatible) +1 Longsword in the hands of an Ogre, and the Ogre would be able to use it against the party.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kahuna Burger]

But dogs are not humanoids. There's completely different assumptions of musculature at work there. Notice that most small dogs are STOUT dogs. That and many small-breed dogs are probably closer to the results of dwarfism in humans. A friend of mine had a few small dogs and they were very prone to health issues and joint problems earlier in life because of the breeding required to get them that small.

I think you may have been exposed to a narrow spectrum of small dogs. The dwarf equivelents are there, but there are those among the larger breeds as well (Bassett hounds, for example), and most small breeds are fairly proportional. Certainly if you are only going to half a larger dog's size, there are going to be plenty of fair comparisons.

And I'm not sure what completely different assumptions are at work - yes, dogs are not humanoids, but they are a species with enough plasticity to be able to directly compare a very young creature to an adult creature (of the same species even) which is roughly the same size. And the comparison shows the youth are not tiny adults, they have different abilities even for their size.

 

[Geoff Watson]

I prefer the 3.5 weapon size rules. It seems a lot more realistic that creatures of different sizes would use their own weapons rather than 'hand me downs' from Medium creatures.

It also gets rid of a lot of the 3.0 weapon size problems (Large Dagger being better than a Greatsword etc, limited weapon choices for non-medium creatures (especially rogues)).

Geoff.

 

[Erithtotl]

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.

Well if you remember before the concept of small and large weapons, a short sword was a short sword, it didn't matter if it was wielded by a small or medium creature. Giving halfling rogues a sword that did 1d6 points of damage didn't excatly destroy game balance.

As for the large mace and morning star issue, I don't remember that ever happening in the 3+ years I played 3.0.

To me, all this rule does is result in a ton of magic weapons the players can't use effectively, nor can they find a buyer for.

As another poster pointed out, fantasy fiction like Tolkein doesn't bother with this. Of all the rules changes that can be made, this seemed pointless and did add complication for many of us. I can't remember big message threads here on ENWorld where people were clamoring for the introduction of small and large weapons.

 

[arscott]

I think the "Monsters are no longer built in the same way as PCs" change means that the 3.5 weapons rules become somewhat superfluous.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I prefer 3.5 rules. Not perfect, but a lot less headache than 3.0 with its huge greatswords for large characters, and their small daggers, and then the small character with his medium greatsword and tiny short sword. I like how 3.5e means a greatsword for huge critters when it talks about huge greatswords.

If you must, add some equivalency tables/rules for different sizes, and you're good.