D&D 3.x [3.5] Weapon size and use

[Camarath]

Ahhh...now I understand. We're experienceing a terminology shift without any clearly worded point of reference.B]

Yes they changed the meaning of sized from referring to the size of the weapon to referring to the scale of the weapon. I imagine the actule rulebooks will be much clearer on this point then what they we released so far.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

From what I can see, we can look forward to explaining things like:

A small dagger is really Diminuitive
A medium dagger is Tiny
A large dagger is Small
A huge dagger is medium
A small greatsword is medium
A medium greatsword is large
A large greatsword is huge

and

Does a small creature wielding a medium greatsword takes a -2 penalty because he is using a medium weapon--or can he not use it at all because the weapon is Large. How about a large greatsword? Would the halfling have -2 to hit because he's small and the weapon is large or would he not be able to wield it at all because the weapon is huge.

It makes sense and probably isn't even that hard to figure out when looking at a table but it's very easy to make it sound confusing. (And, IME, there is a large class of people who like to make rules as confusing as possible--either because they're dense, because they want to make fun of the rules system (not that they matter--they'd find some way to make fun of it no matter what), or because they think they've figured out a way to weasel some strange advantage out of two deliberate misinterpretations and one confused ruling).

Yes they changed the meaning of sized from referring to the size of the weapon to referring to the scale of the weapon. I imagine the actule rulebooks will be much clearer on this point then what they we released so far.

 

[Wolf72]

eek, that does seem very confusing at first.

but what it does do is help with the situations where a small PC wanted to wield a rapier ... now they can, they get a small rapier without taking some wierd exotic weapon feat house rule.

I think it's going to take some de/re- programming to get used to the terminology.

 

[Staffan]

From what I can see, we can look forward to explaining things like:

A small dagger is really Diminuitive
A medium dagger is Tiny
A large dagger is Small
A huge dagger is medium
A small greatsword is medium
A medium greatsword is large
A large greatsword is huge

No, that's not how it works. Weapon size is now related to the size of the wielder it's meant for. A Small dagger is a light weapon meant for Small people, not a Diminutive weapon. A Medium greatsword is a greatsword meant for Medium people, not a Large weapon. Forget the old weapon sizes - they're irrelevant to the way things work now.

Does a small creature wielding a medium greatsword takes a -2 penalty because he is using a medium weapon--or can he not use it at all because the weapon is Large.

The weapon is not Large, it's Medium. The halfling can use it with a -2 penalty on account of it being one size bigger than him.

How about a large greatsword? Would the halfling have -2 to hit because he's small and the weapon is large or would he not be able to wield it at all because the weapon is huge.

The halfling would either have a -4 to hit (because it's two sizes larger than him) or not be able to use it at all (I'm not sure if it's "-2 per size difference" or just "-2 for one size difference, impossible for bigger"). And a large greatsword is Large, not Huge. It's a Large two-handed weapon though.

The thing is that the old weapon size classification has been replaced by a two-dimensional system: "handedness" (light/one-handed/two-handed) and "size" (Small/Medium/Large, determines the size it's meant for). While a Small longsword and a Medium shortsword might do the same damage (1d6), they're not the same weapon - the Small longsword is meant for slashing, and has a thinner hilt (since it's meant for halfling/gnome hands rather than human) wheras the Medium shortsword is meant for piercing and has a thicker hilt.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Does that mean that it is now as easy to disarm a your opponent's shortsword with your longsword (wielded in two hands) as it is to disarm your opponent's dagger with a glaive? Or that it's as easy for a human to conceal a shortsword as it is for him to conceal a dagger (both are light weapons)? Or that it's as easy to divest a human of his greatsword as it is a halfling?

And do they now have individual hardness/hp calculations for every weapon?

All of those relied upon the size mechanics for weapons in 3.0 but would need to be completely reworked if there are no objective size categorizations for weapons (no categorization beyond light/ normal/ two handed)

No, that's not how it works. Weapon size is now related to the size of the wielder it's meant for. A Small dagger is a light weapon meant for Small people, not a Diminutive weapon. A Medium greatsword is a greatsword meant for Medium people, not a Large weapon. Forget the old weapon sizes - they're irrelevant to the way things work now.

 

[Vanye]

The halfling would either have a -4 to hit (because it's two sizes larger than him) or not be able to use it at all (I'm not sure if it's "-2 per size difference" or just "-2 for one size difference, impossible for bigger").

Based on this link:
http://www.gamingreport.com/modules...le=index&req=ShowFile&file_wrap=html/dd17.htm

it would seem that it's a -2 per size difference. Check under the weapon variances.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Does that mean that it is now as easy to disarm a your opponent's shortsword with your longsword (wielded in two hands) as it is to disarm your opponent's dagger with a glaive?

That was the first thing that occurred to me too.

If they haven't changed the way that a greatsword and a shortsword interact in a Disarm attempt, then we'll need to calculate modifiers in our head for the size difference between a Small Greatsword and a Huge Dagger.

Also, AC for objects has traditionally included a size modifier...

-Hyp.

 

[Yobgod Ababua]

How about a large greatsword? Would the halfling have -2 to hit because he's small and the weapon is large or would he not be able to wield it at all because the weapon is huge.

A large greatsword is a 2H weapon for a large creature. It should be "too big" for either a medium or small creature to use.

A large shortsword is a light weapon for a large creature, a 1H weapon for a medium creature (with a -2 offsize penalty), and a 2H weapon for a small creature (with a -4 offsize penalty).

Daggers (and possibly other "ultralight" weapons) get a special bonus to being concealed.

I don't know how they're dealing with disarm checks. My guess would be that your disarm check is modified by 2 per your size category, then modified again based on weapon (+2 for using two hands, -2 for light weapons). Since I don't expect there to be many "ultralight "weapons (dagger may be the only one), it's entry probably just specifically says that you get an extra -2 on disarm checks.

 

[Deset Gled]

I like it. A lot. First, it makes creatures of varying sizes a lot easier to deal with. Second, it gets rid of the problems inherent with size changes to known weapons (like how a tiny rapier was preferable to a kukri).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Second, it gets rid of the problems inherent with size changes to known weapons (like how a tiny rapier was preferable to a kukri).

Hmm? How is 1d3 18-20x2 Tiny Piercing preferable to 1d4 18-20x2 Tiny Slashing?

-Hyp.