D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Size replaced by Handedness?

[youspoonybard]

Since tiny creatures have no natural reach, a tiny longspear probably allows that creature to threaten 5', just like a small or medium creature does with a sword.

 

[AuraSeer]

That could work, but I have found banning weapons to be simpler. Everbody does d8 damage per attack (plus other modifiers). They are free to describe their attacks as using weapons, but this is only flavor text.

Ah, I see you've played Warhammer Fantasy RP. A 'hand weapon' gives you +1 to your effective Strength, and that's all. A bare-handed dwarf is more deadly than a human with a chainsaw.

 

[Benben]

I thought the old system was simple and elegent. I liked that a longsword was a one handed weapon for a human and two handed weapon for a halfling. Made sense to me.

It made sense that that this halfling longsword, a slashing weapon, would suddenly become a piercing weapon (short sword) in the hands of a human?

Let's say they're fighting a 3.5 rakshasa who has 15/Holy and piercing damage reduction. The halfling's longsword is holy. Since it's a slashing weapon it still isn't getting through the rakshasa's DR. But if the intrepid halfling tosses his weapon to the human, suddenly the sword is hurting the rakshasa.

The weapon resizing rules were also inconsistent, or had undocumented exceptions. A greataxe should really just be a 3.0 large sized battle axe. According to the DMG though a 1D8 weapon sized to large should to 2D6 damage. The great axe does d12. Why? A DM can assume it's because of 20x3 critical common to axes, but it's never really explained. Maybe they really are two different weapons.

Weapon resizing was introduced in the DMG, so even the concept of a halfling sized longsword wasn't readily available to a lot of players.

The 3.5 system has given a standard set of weapons for all creatures of all sizes. In this new system though, the shoe fits the wearer. To me this is more elegant than the previous system.

 

[Storm Raven]

It made sense that that this halfling longsword, a slashing weapon, would suddenly become a piercing weapon (short sword) in the hands of a human?

It didn't work that way. The damage type of a weapon was retained no matter who was using it. If a weapon was slashing in the hands of a halfling, it was slashing in the hands of a human, and vice versa.

 

[Benben]

It didn't work that way. The damage type of a weapon was retained no matter who was using it. If a weapon was slashing in the hands of a halfling, it was slashing in the hands of a human, and vice versa.

For the official weapon resizing rules yes. For the hand-waving shortcut introduced by Mad Scientist, I don't think I ever saw guidelines stating that properties are kept even though the name is changing. I agree with you, and IMC, would keep the same damaging properties, but weapon changes like this were never well defined.

The new system seems to here to clarify the oddities of weapon resizing/borrowing that crop up no matter what terminology is used. It's just confusing now because everything we've read is second hand.

I've heard that the 3.5 DMG is going to have weapon equivalences like the Dagger->Short Sword->Longsword-> Bastard Sword->Great Sword chain. For people who want to keep something similar to the 3.0 system.

 

[MadScientist]

For the official weapon resizing rules yes. For the hand-waving shortcut introduced by Mad Scientist, I don't think I ever saw guidelines stating that properties are kept even though the name is changing.

I never stated that a short sword literally was a resized longsword or implied that weapon damage properties change depending on who weilds the weapon. You are putting words in my mouth.

I merely stated that I found the system of comparing weapon size to creature size for determining whether that weapon was light, one-handed, or two handed for that creature was a simple and elegent system. I still think it is.

The weapon resizing rules are presented in the simply DMG as guidlines, not hard and fast rules. That is why some of the weapons in the PHB don't necessarily follow them to the letter.

The system I proposed simply offered a solution a to the problem as to what happens when a halfling decides to swing a greatsword even though it is two size categories bigger than he is. Somthing the core rules currently assume you simpley can't do.

I admit that their are some 'holes' in the weapon selection. Their is no small sword like weapon that does slashing damage, like the longsword, but this problem could be solved by simply introducing some new weapons like the halfling lonsword [small size, 1d6 19/X2 (s)]. You could do similar things for larger weapons as well.

Reach issues could have been solved by defining the reach for all weapons. I just don't see how making weapons have sizes and handedness categories is simplifying the system. As I said I'm willing to reserve final judgement until I see the system in its entirety.

 

[AuraSeer]

I admit that their are some 'holes' in the weapon selection. Their is no small sword like weapon that does slashing damage, like the longsword, but this problem could be solved by simply introducing some new weapons like the halfling lonsword [small size, 1d6 19/X2 (s)]. You could do similar things for larger weapons as well.

Or, you could just change the meaning of the weapon size, as the 3.5 designers did. Now everyone has the same selection of weapons, without doubling the size of the equipment list.

 

[splitinfinitude]

They didn't just double the weapon list, they octupled it. Now we have diminuative through colossal greatswords, battleaxes, etc.

I can't tell yet if this is going to end up being painful or helpful. It looks like the new sizing rules clear up some issues, but at this point I can't figure out what happens when a halfling proficient in "halfling shortsword" tries to use a "human dagger." If those are two separate weapon proficiencies, this system is going to be extremely annoying. I'm going to end up with a dozen houserules over equivelant proficiencies, particularly with exotic weapons.

 

[Storm Raven]

Or, you could just change the meaning of the weapon size, as the 3.5 designers did. Now everyone has the same selection of weapons, without doubling the size of the equipment list.

There were only a handful of holes, which could (and in many cases were ) have been filled in by a handful of weapon additions in a supplement like the Arms & Equipment Guide. A Small slashing sword is an easy fix to make. Octupling the number of weapons on the list, coupled with a familiarity mechanic and implementing the whole system in a slip-shod manner is not an easy fix.

 

[MadScientist]

That's exactly right Split.

-Current system-> Human fighter tosses gnome ranger friend a longsword, sweet gnome grabs it with two hands and starts swing away at the big baddie. We know exactly how to handle the situation, whether the gnome's feats apply, etc.

-New system-> Human fighter tosses gnome ranger friend a longsword... er but this isn't a small longsword it's a medium longsword.... Does the gnome grab it with one hand and attack at a penalty? Does the gnome grab it with two hands and treat it as a small greatsword at no penalty? Is it two handed with a penalty? If he has WF longsword does he still get the +1 atk, or does he need WF greatsword, or with neither feet work b/c they only work on specific versions of weapons and nothing else? Even if the new system answers all of these questions there is still an extra layer of complexity added to weapons.

What benefit does this extra layer of complexity, even if done well, give us? Maybe when I see the whole system I'll see the benefit, but I simply do not see it now.