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

[mearls]

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

See, the thing is that you're working from the problem in the wrong direction. You can describe all weapons in that manner. It all comes down to efficiency.

The issue as Merric states it is a valid one: how do you talk about weapons defined in terms of size M and S for larger and smaller creatures?

3.5 answers that question by giving every weapon a definition at every size, and then providing rules to handle the interactions between creatures of size X and weapons of size Y.

I think this is terribly inefficient, and it adds just enough "realism" to the system to make it strange and weird. For example, does a halfling with Weapon Focus receive his bonus for a Large version of his weapon, even though he has to use it two-handed? Isn't that a bit weird? A halfling fighter wields a Small longsword. It deals the same exact damage as a shortsword, and it even weighs the same, but somehow, magically, it isn't the same as a shortsword. It's "balanced" differently. All the weapons now have two damage ratings listed. Assigning treasure is a pain in the butt. In fact, it's so much of a pain that the 3.5 adventures in Dungeon don't do it.

So really, the basic problem is this: we've designed a body of game artifacts in reference to creatures of size M and S. We need to now define them in terms of other creature sizes. Do we:

A) Complicate the entire system, making things harder for all creatures.
B) Keep things as simple as they are for size M and S creatures (including the vast majority of PCs) and create a similar system for different sized creatures?

Option B makes the system broader and solves a lot of problems without adding any additional complications for all the human, gnome, and elf characters out there. In fact, its pretty simple to implement.

In the DMG, you list a bunch of tables that look like this. I'm stealing Merric's example because I'm lazy:

Longsword-Equivalent Weapons:
Microblade - Diminuitive - 1d3 - 19-20/x2
Midgetblade - Tiny - 1d4 - 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

And then you list the specific weapons each class gets by size. Voila. Problem solved, and you no longer have to do any math or anything yourself to figure out what a Huge creature should be toting. The interactions between sizes are all defined by the original rules, and there's no confusion in Dungeon modules about what size a weapon really is. It's pretty easy to create general rules to cover this, too. A creature gets the equivalent weapon equal to its size for each specific weapon given in a character class's list.

The key is that if you run a Large character or a Tiny one, things are a bit more complicated. But, since most people aren't doing that, most people don't have to learn a bunch of new rules to handle something that should be relatively simple. This system provides the same end result by treating Large and Huge characters as what they are - exceptions, rather than making things more complicated for *everyone* in an effort to cover all possible situations.

 

[reiella]

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.

Ah but therein lies the inherit problem with the 3.0 system however.

In 3.0, size did not determine proficency. It only affected one's ability to make use of Weapon Finesse with said weapon (and of course weight). To make the claim that a (medium weapon size) dagger was in fact a (medium weapon size) longsword would be a bit of a houserule in itself (if a logical streach as mentioned above). Weapons of different size do in fact exist in 3.0 (look at Giants or Titans for some of them), and are scaled in this manner. Or would the Huge Greatsword a Giant uses just be a Colossal Dagger in the hands of a colossal zombie (do you know how few core colossal creatures there are that aren't dragons?) and therefore, have a different cost?

There is the similiar problem of the rather confusing potential of creatures dual wielding what 'should be' a two-handed weapon regardless of size (like say, a scythe).

For the most part, the 3.5 system just more so seems how it 'should be' to me, with a more logical transition between steps, and is in fact, the way I have been running it in my 3.0 campaign without really realizing it (resizing weapons instead of using the 'bigger weapons' in 'bigger hands').

 

[Li Shenron]

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

And in fact now we have many new unaswered questions as well.

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.

Such a "huge flaw" that it took the 20th or so published book to recognize it?

 

[Camarath]

A halfling fighter wields a Small longsword. It deals the same exact damage as a shortsword, and it even weighs the same, but somehow, magically, it isn't the same as a shortsword. It's "balanced" differently.

The type of damage the weapon does is different. A Longsword deals Slashing damage and a Shortsword does Piercing damage.

 

[Staffan]

If you laid a halfling greatsword next to a human longsword, they would look exactly the same.

No, they wouldn't. A greatsword isn't just a longsword scaled up - it's a different weapon, with stuff like not sharpening the blade close to the hilt (so you can grip it there), flanges, and a much narrower hilt than a longsword at scale 2:1. That's why you'd get penalties for fighting with it - it's just not the same as a human longsword.

And if you look at shortswords vs. longswords, it becomes even more obvious. The shortsword is a piercing weapon, so you mostly thrust with it. The longsword on the other hand is a slashing weapon, mostly cutting people.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

That's not the default case in 3.5.

A Small longspear is not a Medium spear or shortspear. It is a Small two-handed reach weapon, that can be used by a Medium character as a one-handed reach weapon at a -2 penalty.

If you let a Medium creature use it as a Medium spear, you're already introducing variant weapon sizing rules...

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

When you use a longsword in two hands, is it a one-handed weapon or a two handed weapon for power attack purposes?

According to the rules, it's a "one-handed weapon wielded in two hands". Read the decription of Power Attack - you get 2-for-1 with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, or a two-handed weapon.

The Sage recently stated that a longsword wielded in two hands is a two-handed weapon, but he doesn't appear to know what he's talking about in this case.

Can a human fighter use a halfling sized +5 vorpal sword?
-----------------------------------------------
yes. but at a penalty if he didn't take it as a feat.

Which feat's that, diaglo? I'm not aware of any that will let a human ignore the penalty for using a Small (inappropriately-sized) weapon.

If it's a Small longsword, then MWP (Longsword) makes him proficient, but he takes a -2 penalty and treats it as a Light weapon. If it's a Small greatsword, then MWP (Greatsword) makes him proficient, but he takes a -2 penalty and treats it as a One-Handed weapon.

That -2 penalty doesn't go away.

-Hyp.

 

[MerricB]

And in fact now we have many new unaswered questions as well.

Of course, but what areas are left out?

* Range scaling
* Ranged Weapon scaling (wrt Two-Handed, Light, etc.)
* Reach weapons

These things should have been covered in the PHB, and do not, in fact, have difficult answers. They only need to be answered.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

In the DMG, you list a bunch of tables that look like this. I'm stealing Merric's example because I'm lazy:

Longsword-Equivalent Weapons:
Microblade - Diminuitive - 1d3 - 19-20/x2
Midgetblade - Tiny - 1d4 - 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

And then you list the specific weapons each class gets by size. Voila. Problem solved, and you no longer have to do any math or anything yourself to figure out what a Huge creature should be toting.

Yes, but it is clumsy and a pain. Any new class or prestige class's Weapon List becomes seven times as long if it refers to individual weapons.

The 3.5E rules already allow a Large Longsword to be used as a Medium Greatsword. See the Weapon Equivalency table on page 27 of the DMG.

When you refer to a large character wielding a greatsword, if I said an "Ogre's Greatsword" you'd immediately know what I was talking about - we think of weapons in relation to the size of the wielder.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

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.

At no point in the 3E rules does it state that.

The rules in the A&EG and Savage Species describe how to handle larger and smaller weapons than normal. At this point, you can have a Large Dagger, or a Fine Dagger.

The Fine Dagger is the proper size for the (Small) Halfling. We must assume he would know how to use weapons scaled for him (as this is how it works for other monsters). However, because of existing practice in the PHB, a Halfling can already use all weapons of a Medium-size character with no penalty. By this fact, we can determine that there is no penalty for using weapons of variant sizes.

So, a Wizard using a Large Dagger (dealing 2d6, P, 19-20/x2) is a possibility, at no penalty.

Enjoy!

Cheers!