D&D 3.x 3.5 weapon sizing: compelling reasons?

[Luddite]

I think this is the situation they had in mind with the new rules. It makes it easier to play larger or smaller characters (in other words, monsters) as PCs. On the other hand, it adds an unnecessary layer of complication for people playing the standard PC races.

In essence, the rules make the exceptions and rare cases easier to run but in the process make the common, every day cases more difficult.

I am not sure I agree that the current rules make thing more complicated then before for the "common" use. If anything it is alot easier. For everyday use, a character just looks up his weapon and moves on. What is a Light or Two-Handed weapons is now Explicit.

The only "complications" come with weapon equvilanacy.

Some people have an issue with reach weapons, but I don't. A Small Longspear is a reach weapon for small character. A Medium Character can use it as a reache weapon at the standard penality for differing sizes, but can use it as a Medium Shortspear without penaltiy. IMO the number of House rules to address weapon issues are fewer in 3.5.

-The Luddite

 

[MerricB]

The 3E weapon size rules, quite simply, sucked.

There were too many unanswered questions and areas which could be terribly min-maxed.

Consider a human wizard wielding a Large Dagger (by 3E rules). No penalty to hit, he's proficient in its use, and it does 2d6 damage.

The only weapon a Halfling could use with Weapon Finesse was a Dagger.

The 3.5E rules aren't perfect (there are still a few areas to be answered), but they do a far better job of modelling how weapons work and plugging these gaping holes in the system.

Cheers!

 

[Nightfall]

I like the vast majority of changes in 3.5, but this one still baffles me.

Have to side with my favorite freelancer on this.

 

[The Sigil]

The 3E weapon size rules, quite simply, sucked.

Consider a human wizard wielding a Large Dagger (by 3E rules). No penalty to hit, he's proficient in its use, and it does 2d6 damage.

Huh? I must have missed the "Large Dagger" on Table 7-4: Weapons in my 3e manuals. I remember seeing a Greatsword that is a Large Weapon that does 2d6 damage and requires Martial Weapon Proficiency, but not Large Daggers that do 2d6 damage and require Simple Weapon Proficiency.

IOW, 3e didn't support "Large Daggers" because 3e *didn't have* scaling weapons. Methinks you are mixing 3e and 3.5e there.

Or I could be wrong (happens all the time), and I'm sure you'll direct me to what I missed.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

Mike said it beautifully earlier in the thread...

The beauty with the 3e system was that a weapon was defined by a smaller set of parameters that STILL covered the range of "plug-and-playability" endemic in 3.5e... the only "problem" was that the weapons list was designed with Medium-Size characters in mind and thus had too few Tiny (and smaller) and Huge (and larger) weapons for characters of odd sizes.

Rather than introduce a lot more parameters to describe a weapon, they should have simply expanded the range of available Tiny (and smaller) and Huge (and larger) weapons. Problem solved.

Mike, you're right. They solved for the "unusual case" at the expense of unnecessarily complicating the "usual case." And they did so incompletely because they did not account for changes in reach, etc. Had they extended the table of weapons instead, they could have "built in" the reach changes (e.g., most Huge weapons by default have a reach of 10 feet, etc).

--The Sigil

 

[MerricB]

Huh? I must have missed the "Large Dagger" on Table 7-4: Weapons in my 3e manuals. I remember seeing a Greatsword that is a Large Weapon that does 2d6 damage and requires Martial Weapon Proficiency, but not Large Daggers that do 2d6 damage and require Simple Weapon Proficiency.

IOW, 3e didn't support "Large Daggers" because 3e *didn't have* scaling weapons. Methinks you are mixing 3e and 3.5e there.

Or I could be wrong (happens all the time), and I'm sure you'll direct me to what I missed.

--The Sigil

You ran into it the moment that you started using Savage Species (or looked at some of the larger monsters & weapons in the Monster Manual).

Titan (from the 3E SRD).
Damage: Gargantuan warhammer 4d6+19; or Huge javelin 2d6+13

The problem existed from the very start with 3E, but it wasn't recognised until Savage Species was in development. At that point, the designers realised the huge flaws in the system.

Cheers!

 

[The Sigil]

You ran into it the moment that you started using Savage Species

Ah... so you mean the moment I step OUTSIDE the Core 3.0 rule set. When I see "3.0" I think 3.0 PHB, DMG, MM.

(or looked at some of the larger monsters & weapons in the Monster Manual).Titan (from the 3E SRD).
Damage: Gargantuan warhammer 4d6+19; or Huge javelin 2d6+13

The problem existed from the very start with 3E, but it wasn't recognised until Savage Species was in development. At that point, the designers realised the huge flaws in the system.

True enough, those are in the MM. However, it still doesn't solve the problem of "using as few parameters as possible" .

--The Sigil

 

[Plane Sailing]

In 3.0, I as a DM had to make a House Rule to state that a "Shotsword" is a "Dagger" for a Large Creature. Therefore a PC Orge Sorcerer could use it as a Simple Weapon.

I'd hardly call that a house rule, it is merely logical extrapolation and making a judgement call... part of the basic duty as a DM.

Creating your own entirely new system for handling weapon sizes would constitute a house rule, but not something as trivial as this, surely. You'd end up with entire rooms filled with tomes!

Regards

 

[MerricB]

Ah... so you mean the moment I step OUTSIDE the Core 3.0 rule set. When I see "3.0" I think 3.0 PHB, DMG, MM.

No, it's just that in Savage Species that the flaws are most obvious.

True enough, those are in the MM. However, it still doesn't solve the problem of "using as few parameters as possible" .

Your mistake (and Mike's) is in thinking fewer parameters are possible.

Mike gives the following parameters for describing a weapon:
* Name
* Size
* Damage
* Critical Multiplier

Now, let us build the types of "swords" possible with this:
Needle - Diminuitive - 1d3 - 19-20/x2
Dagger - Tiny - 1d4 - 19-20/x2
Shortsword - Small - 1d6 - 19-20/x2
Longsword - Medium - 1d8 - 19-20/x2
Greatsword - Large - 2d6 - 19-20/x2
Fullblade - Huge - 2d8 - 19-20/x2
Bigblade - Gargantuan - 4d6 - 19-20/x2
Whoppingblade - Colossal - 4d8 - 19-20/x2
(Damage codes are probably wrong, but you get the idea).

Now, take an Ogre rogue. What weapons did he have proficiency in?
Take a Cloud Giant rogue. What weapons does he have proficiency in?
Take a Pixie rogue. What weapons does he have proficiency in?

At this point, one begins to see a problem with the system: The D&D 3E Proficiency System primarily works by the NAME of the weapon. The size is irrelevant. The rogue, who should be able to use various weapons allowable to them, can't, because only the man-sized weapons of those type are allowed. (The Simple/Martial/Exotic system doesn't affect the argument at all).

Indeed, a Colossal creature CANNOT use a greatsword proportionally sized for them, because no size code exists for it! This is, quite simply, stupid.

If we do allow the resizing of weapons, (and allow a halfling to use a rapier proportionally sized for them with Weapon Finesse), then you get the problem of the wizard using a Large Dagger. Hmm. Another problem.

Well, then why not adopt the 3.5E system of having a -2 penalty for each size difference from what it should be? At this point, the 3E system falls in a quivering heap.

What size should a dagger be for a Titan? You need to remember that the Titan is a Huge creature, that a man is a Medium creature and that the man-sized dagger is Tiny (and thus two jumps down), and then Huge -> Large -> Medium and then you realise that the dagger must be Medium for the Titan. When you start moving to stranger weapons, the calculations are absolutely horrible.

Cheers!

 

[mearls]

Consider a human wizard wielding a Large Dagger (by 3E rules). No penalty to hit, he's proficient in its use, and it does 2d6 damage.

That's not true. A dagger is defined by its size in 3.0, not its inherent "daggerness", for lack of a better term. A large dagger would be a different weapon, just as a small longsword is a shortsword.