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

[diaglo]

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.

you can always take martial weapon prof. for a weapon you are not prof. with on the martial list, but it is for one weapon only.

thus a human (med size) can take martial weapon prof with a small martial weapon like a small longsword as a feat.

edit: or would that be exotic...still a feat.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

(my emphasis)

I think that this is the key issue. The 3.5e modifications shouldn't have made things any more difficult for the majority of people. They should have come up with generic rules which could be used to intepret stuff on the rare occasions when it was needed without introducing all kinds of stuff that confuse matters for anybody.

The idea of small-sized longspears boggles the mind, not least because it would be a fundamentally new kind of weapon in the medium sized marketplace - and a highly desirable one too, even if there was a -2 penalty to hit with it, since you could dual wield with a light weapon, or use with a shield or (horrors!) fight with two of them at once!

Regards,

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Ah, you mean the entirely optional rules contained in supplements published much later?

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

Only if you mindlessly incorporate entirely optional rules that have no bearing on the actual, core rules.

 

[mearls]

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.

Not necessarily. The idea I put forth was that in the case of a non-standard sized creature, you'd have a section in the DMG that would list alternate weapons. So, each PrC has the same list of weapons, but if a DM (or player) wants to use a Large or Tiny creature in that class, he looks up the conversion rules in the DMG. The basic idea is that the rules remain the same for Medium and Small creatures. From the typical player's perspective, nothing has changed.

I think the 3.5 weapon equivalency rules are a good idea, but I think it's another example of the nth layer of extra rules needed to make the new system work for Small and Medium characters with the same ease and flexibility as the old ones. Under the old system, all of those equivalencys are bound into the weapon size.

 

[mearls]

About the Large dagger issue: I think the mistake with this ruling is that it's a sort of half-step between the 3.0 and 3.5 rules. For the 3.0 rules to work seamlessly, when a weapon changes size it becomes a completely different weapon. In essence, there is no such thing as a Large dagger, there's a weapon called a "big stabby" that is size L, has the dagger's damage type, and progresses the dagger's damage to size L.

Now, it might seem confusing that the 3.0 rules would require redefinitions of all the weapons at all sizes, but I think that makes sense for clarity's sake. There are a few reasons why:

* Weapon size is usually obvious when you look at it in context of a creature carrying a weapon, but what about treasure? As I mentioned before, Dungeon still doesn't list weapon sizes in treasure hordes.

* Feats that require specific weapons: If a Large longsword is so unwieldy that I take a -2 penalty to use it, why should I still gain the benefit of Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, and so on? By the rules, the weapon is balanced funny and hard to wield, but somehow my longsword training applies to it.

* Why couldn't someone gain proficiency with smaller or larger weapons? A one-handed spiked chain would be pretty useful, or even two of them dual-wielded. The size scaling forces some weird situations, where smaller weapons are better than their larger versions in some cases. Why wouldn't Medium creatures make an effort to learn how to use these weapons? Why do Medium creatures even bother with Medium reach weapons, when Small ones are a better bargain?

Again, my main problem isn't that the new rules are horrible or anything. I think they're OK, but I think the older system was more efficient and was prone to fewer loopholes. The new system requires more bookkeeping, and it leads to some weird situations. The old system wasn't perfect, but I think it is much easier and more elegant to iron out those problems to handle the non-standard cases rather than to change all of the rules to fit them in.

 

[The Sigil]

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.

So in other words, these are rules from optional supplements that were prepared (and influenced) by the upcoming design changes in 3.5e? I'm sorry, but I have to disallow from argument anything in those books as "3.0" in this discussion. As an analogy, the Fiend Folio changes "Shapechanger" from a full-fledged creature type into a subtype. Clearly, the 3.0 rules had Shapechanger as a full-fledged creature type; to point to the FF, which was 3.25, if you will, and call it 3.0 is simply trying to redefine terms to make your opponent look bad. FF is technically a 3.0 book, but clearly, it's more of a 3.25 rulebook, as MANY of the 3.5 changes are already reflected therein. Books published right before the switch really shouldn't be included in this discussion. Stick to what is in the 3.0 PHB, MM, DMG and 3.5 PHB, MM, and DMG.

Simply put, "scaling weapons" - such as a "Large Dagger" simply do not exist in core 3.0 rules - they only come into being in optional supplements, which were "forward-looking" to 3.5 anyway. A "Large Dagger" is most definitely a 3.5 construction, not a 3.0 construction.

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

Again, not correct, because there is no "Large Dagger" in 3.0 - you are confusing the systems.

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.

It depends VERY much on how you say it... saying:
an "Ogre's Greatsword" might make me think of an up-sized Greatsword, but to be honest, it took several readings to get that picture in my mind... I kept reading it as:
"an Ogre's Greatsword" - i.e., a "regular-sized" Greatsword that happens to belong to an ogre.

If I am fighting a group of ogres, and you say, "an ogre's greatsword," I might see it as a Huge weapon (I probably wouldn't, but I might). If the ogres are dead, and I'm rifling through their loot, and I come across a blade that you describe as "an ogre's greatsword," I probably visualize it as a Large Weapon.

I think that this comes down to a matter of semantics. When I hear "longsword" I think "3-4' blade." My brain's version of "longsword" does NOT scale with the size of the owner, because I think of it as a fixed object that can exist in a vacuum, independent from an owner. You think "blade that is 66-75% of the height of the weilder;" i.e., your longsword cannot exist in a vacuum, independent of an owner (to prevent a war of semantics, consider the person labelling the object as "longsword" to be the owner "in a vacuum" because I'm sure you'll argue it's because I'm a M-size creature LOL). Maybe I'm size-prejudiced towards size M creatures, I dunno.

To put it another way, suppose you were an ogre child raised in a village of halflings. For your 20th birthday, the halflings presented you with a sword that was as large as their greatest warrior could wield. All your life, you have seen these blades, and everyone calls them "greatswords." Even though this is a light weapon for you... in 3.5 rules, a "Large Slashing Shortsword" you will call it a "greatsword" as well.

The difference is, you're tying terminology to "ownership" or "viewership" and not to the intrinsic object itself. I am trying to define the object itself, independent of owner or viewer. The simplest way to do that is, in fact, to go with Needlesword, Microsword, etc. That way, whether a storm giant or a pixie says, "needlesword" I know exactly whether or not I can pick up the weapon and use it. The verisimilitude is lost somewhat there perhaps (though, using my ogre in a halfling village, it's not TOO far a stretch). But for me, verisimilitude is MUCH more lost when the giant tells me, "hey, I think I have a Medium-Sized Sword that you could use... you wouldn't happen to have a Huge-Sized Mace for me and a Diminutive Light Flail for my buddy the pixie here, would you?"

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

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.

Um, you missed the point. You do this list in the DMG once and only once. A new class's weapons list remains the same - you list the "medium-sized" weapon name, on the assumption that most characters are medium sized. To use an example, ClassX is proficient with Longswords and no other weapons. If I'm playing a Huge creature and take a level in ClassX, I simply flip to the appropriate table in the DMG and instead of listing a proficiency for "Longsword" list a proficiency "Fullblade." Each class doesn't have to have a listing for every size category, you simply list the "medium" weapons and off-size characters go to the appendix to "swap out" to the appropriate weapon. One list, one appendix. Very easily done... and this is no worse than now where you have to check a table to see what your weapon damage is after up-sizing it - AND it easily removes the confusion of what scaling does to reach, et al (since those are listed with FullBlade on the table).

Simply put, while the system may add (to your mind) a bit of verisimilitude, it does so at the expense of VASTLY overcomplicating things when they didn't need to. An expanded weapons table, with more variety in weapon sizes, along with a table of "if your class gives you proficiency in X and you are size Y, substitute instead Weapon Z" clearly and quickly solves the problem. That is the way it should have been done. What we have now is an approximation of that, the difference is simply "if your class gives you proficiency in X and you are size Y, substitute instead Weapon Y X" - while imperfectly defining the object that is Weapon Y X (due to the problems illustrated earlier).

Does that help explain things better. Calling something a Large Greatsword is no different than calling it a Fullblade (or whatever); the difference is merely semantics. However, it dilutes the value of the term "greatsword" since you can't just look at "Large Greatsword" and know the parameters of the object; you instead have to look of the parameters of "greatsword" and then also apply the "large" template to it. It's one extra step that is unneeded.

Rule #1 in game design: KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) - Weapon Resizing essentially forces you to add a template to every weapon every time, and by doing so adds one extra step of complexity. It's a bad rule not because it lacks for verisimilitude, but because it's an extra layer of complexity (and because the templates are ill-defined).

--The Sigil

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Aside:

Actually, regarding 3.5 ranges/reaches for weapons that are other than Medium-sized:

Why not use the sized-based multipliers for Strength in regards to the range & reach of a weapon (with fractions rounded down)?

For example, Small weapons would have 3/4 the reach & range of a Medium-sized weapon of the same type. Large weapons would have double the reach & range, and so on.

It's a quick fix that's already built into the system, but is just applied from one area (lifting/carrying) to another (range/reach of weapons).

 

[HellHound]

Some of this may have been addressed already, but here goes.

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

BUT, if you set a human shortsword beside a halfling longsword, they WOULDN'T be the same. In 3.0, the halfling 'longsword' was a human shortsword and thus was a stabbing weapon. Why wouldn't halflings have slashing weapons at that scale? This is NOT semantics, it is weapon design.

On top of it, this allows small creatures to use weapons like the spiked chain.

---

For those asking about reach.

I'm sick and tired of people claiming that the new weapon size rules create a new "unaddressed" rule problem regarding reach and variant weapon sizes. These rules are stated VERY clearly in the rulebooks. All you have to do is read them.

WotC -HAS- spelled out the reach rules for creatures of ALL sizes. It's in the templates at the back of the DMG and in the PHB on page 112-113. In the back of the DMG, it shows each size of creature from Medium on up, it's normal reach, and it's reach while using a reach weapon. For small creatures, the graphics there don't help, but check out page 112 of the PHB.

Reach Weapons: ...Most reach weapons described in this chapter double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square.

Anyone claiming that this is an unresolved issue hasn't read the PHB3.5 yet and is using myth and misinformation instead of facts in arguing regarding the 3.5 weapon size rules.

Then we move on to fine and diminuative creatures. They have a reach of 0. Therefore, doubling their reach makes their new reach... ZERO.

 

[The Sigil]

BUT, if you set a human shortsword beside a halfling longsword, they WOULDN'T be the same. In 3.0, the halfling 'longsword' was a human shortsword and thus was a stabbing weapon. Why wouldn't halflings have slashing weapons at that scale? This is NOT semantics, it is weapon design.

*shrugs*

Perhaps. I dunno, maybe I'm a bit simple, but for me the important thing with weapons is that there is, in essence, the following formula:

Medium-Size Weapon
Base damage is 1d6
Choose one damage type (S/B/P)
Choose one "special ability" (increased crit multiplier, increased threat range, increased damage die, weapon finessible, throwable, second damage type, etc.)
If a martial weapon, add another special ability
If an exotic weapon, add instead two more special abilities.

It's not perfect, of course, but it's close. Base damage die increases/decreases with size, other things are unchanged.

A Medium-Size Martial Weapon with the properties:

Base damage is 1d6
Damage Type is Slash
Special Ability is increased threat range (19-20)
Second Special Ability (martial weapon) is increased damage die (to 1d8)

is usually referred to as a "(medium-size) longsword." One with:

Base damage is 1d6
Damage Type is Slash
Special Ability is increased crit multiplier (x3)
Second Special Ability (martial weapon) is increased damage die (to 1d8)

is usually referred to as a "(medium-size) battle axe."

Is this a boring way of thinking about weapons? Yes. But that's what I boil it down to when I say semantics. Yes, there is the Pierce/Slash issue with shortswords for halflings. But to me, it seems trivial. The label "longsword" is simply a convenient way to package the above set of attributes. My way is MUCH less exciting, I fully admit that - but it does a pretty good job of emulating the Weapon tables.

Having come to that conclusion - that "longsword" is simply a convenient shorthand for "1d8, Slash, Increased threat range," I happen to be of the opinion that you may as well call EVERY weapon with those properties a "longsword." If it's a "Large Slashing Shortsword," or a "Small Greatsword" why not call it a "longsword" and save the trouble?

In other words, I like the "duck test." If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts like a duck, for all intents and purposes it's a "duck." If it slashes like a longsword, damages like a longsword, and crits like a longsword, for all intents and purposes, it's a "longsword." I think that's what it comes to at the end of the day. I don't need "Tiny Greatswords" and "Large Slashing Shortswords" and "Medium Size Longswords" and "Huge Slashing Daggers" that all work exactly the same way (mechanically) when the term "longsword" covers that mechanical setup quite neatly. IOW, I don't need four or five names for what is, mechanically, the exact same thing any more than I need the third level spells "blue flame ball" (blue flame explodes doing 1d6/level, 10d6 max fire damage to a 20' spread), "green hotball" (green flame explodes doing 1d6/level, 10d6 max fire damage to a 20' spread), "yellow blastball" (yellow flame explodes doing 1d6/level, 10d6 max fire damage to a 20' spread), and "fireball" (red flame explodes doing 1d6/level, 10d6 max fire damage to a 20' spread). One is enough, thanks.

--The Sigil

 

[Psion]

I agree with sigil. I'll heap on to that my biggest objection: while reasonable, it's just too abstract to worry about compared to the way other things are treated in D&D. Take for example the default total lack of penalties for injury. If you don't think those are significant enough to track, I fail to see why you would feel the need to tack on penalties because the grip of the dagger is a little thick for a halfling.