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

[Droogie]

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey with that quote, but given the quotes from Andy Collins at the top of the page, a Small Longspear will grant 10 foot reach to a halfling.

If Andy's information is accurate, it's not confusing at all... what was your intended interpretation of the EB quote?

-Hyp.

To belittle me.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Is it just me, or have the 3.5 designers simply traded one oddity for another? Sure, some of the strangeness of the old system is taken care of. But they've done so by introducing all-new strangeness.

Now, from the ENBoards Rules Forum standpoint that's great, because it creates all-new rules strangeness to discuss around here, but really, what's been gained?

Just me? Okay, I'll disappear now.

 

[Li Shenron]

Is it just me, or have the 3.5 designers simply traded one oddity for another? Sure, some of the strangeness of the old system is taken care of. But they've done so by introducing all-new strangeness.

Now, from the ENBoards Rules Forum standpoint that's great, because it creates all-new rules strangeness to discuss around here, but really, what's been gained?

Just me? Okay, I'll disappear now.

Well, that was the motive that made me start this thread.

I think the 3.0 weapon system was simple and working. It was absolutely clear and not "confusing" as A.C. says, but I agree it was very "ad hoc".

The 3.5 system is probably going to be just a little more complicated, and it will work fine, but I really wonder who needed such a change in their games. Ok, maybe we are still stuck with basic campaigns, so our experience is limited, but we never felt the need for such a generalization. BTW, the 3.0 weapons were already covering a lot, a small character could use a Shortsword as a medium character would have used a Longsword for example, and so on, and there were simple guidelines to scale damage for bigger/smaller versions.

I think that the new system will have many unneeded duplicates: what's the point of having a Large Shortsword, a Medium Longsword and a Small Greatsword if they do same damage, and are basically the same weapon. There was a reason in the first place to have Shortswords, Longswords and Greatswords, and the reason was exactly the SIZE and how it affects the use of the weapon. If they wanted a generalization, they could have got rid of Short- Long- or Great-, just have a "Sword" weapon with constant statistics (such as crit) and scalable damage), then an "Axe" type, a "Spear" type and so on.

Not that I necessarily dislike the new way, but I didn't really need it and it is less simple that the static weapon chart.

 

[Saepiroth]

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey with that quote, but given the quotes from Andy Collins at the top of the page, a Small Longspear will grant 10 foot reach to a halfling.

If Andy's information is accurate, it's not confusing at all... what was your intended interpretation of the EB quote?

-Hyp.

To belittle me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

BTW, the 3.0 weapons were already covering a lot, a small character could use a Shortsword as a medium character would have used a Longsword for example...

Not quite. A Shortsword is a Piercing weapon, a Longsword is a Slashing weapon.

Scale a 3.0 Shortsword up to Large, and you don't have a Greatsword (2d6 19-20x2 Slashing), you have Large Shortsword (2d6 19-20x2 Piercing).

-Hyp.

 

[Li Shenron]

Not quite. A Shortsword is a Piercing weapon, a Longsword is a Slashing weapon.

Scale a 3.0 Shortsword up to Large, and you don't have a Greatsword (2d6 19-20x2 Slashing), you have Large Shortsword (2d6 19-20x2 Piercing).

-Hyp.

And yet I recall how many times in my glorious gaming this difference has proved fundamental...

I exactly meant that I can't see why it is so important to absolutely have in the game such an exact weapon. Which the same character would use only at the cost of a penalty, so probably would be used only by some monster. And which probably doesn't even make so much sense to say it still delivers piercing damage at all, given the size increase. Would a Colossal Shuriken still deliver piercing damage? Perhaps, but who cares? Why junking the PHB with Colossal Shurikens?

 

[Hypersmurf]

And yet I recall how many times in my glorious gaming this difference has proved fundamental...

It matters if you want it made Vorpal. It matters if you're a Large Duellist. It matters if something is resistant to piercing weapons.

The damage descriptors are there for a reason. They may not come up every session, but they shouldn't be ignored.

-Hyp.

 

[Mark Chance]

Scale a 3.0 Shortsword up to Large, and you don't have a Greatsword (2d6 19-20x2 Slashing), you have Large Shortsword (2d6 19-20x2 Piercing).

I can solve this "problem" for free. Ready? Okay!

Player: Can I have a greatsword that does Piercing damage?

DM: Sure!

Phew! That took a lot out of me, but it sure was cheaper than a whole new revision.

 

[Li Shenron]

It matters if you want it made Vorpal. It matters if you're a Large Duellist. It matters if something is resistant to piercing weapons.

The damage descriptors are there for a reason. They may not come up every session, but they shouldn't be ignored.

-Hyp.

Yes, Hyp, I don't ignore them. I didn't want to question your precision. But you would admit that in this way it can easily get too far from what it's worth.

I don't think the PHB is the best place for such a precise system, what about Arms & Equipment Guide? Or Savage Species for scaling weapons? PHB is for players, and basic ones, why complicating the basic rules?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I suspect the complete system is in the PHB because of halflings and gnomes.

If all the PC races were Medium, there would be no need for a scaling system to appear in the PHB. But since they wanted to include a scaling system in the revision, and since there are PC races of two sizes in the PHB, I can understand the reasoning behind placing the scaling system in the PHB.

I'm not sure I know why they felt it needed to be changed in the first place, but hey...

-Hyp.