D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 weapon sizing: compelling reasons?

[Aaron L]

Anything but a light weapon and a rapier can be used in two hands for power attack purposes. Small reach weapons still have reach, I guess they're just a bit shorter, but probably a lot "thinner" and lighter overall.

 

[Remathilis]

I like the sizing because it MAKES SENSE...

1.) Halflings would make longswords, greatswords, or other weapons properly sized for themselves, as opposed to using human small weapons.

2.) Ditto with Ogres, giants (etc.)

3.) It allows small folks to use the full gamut of weapons for their class, esp. wizards and rogues (whom small ones really got shafted)

4.) It reduces alot of unnecessary weapons: Halfling Siagham, Halfling Nunchucku, Halfling Kama, Halfling Cutlass, etc. These were only listed to mimic the effect of resized weapons. Wasted space that could be summed up with one additional column.

5.) It makes fighting larger and smaller foes with magical gear harder to loot.

6.) Its another De-tolkienization of D&D and a unneeded sacred cow. Good Riddance.

 

[francisca]

I like the sizing because it MAKES SENSE...

1.) Halflings would make longswords, greatswords, or other weapons properly sized for themselves, as opposed to using human small weapons.

2.) Ditto with Ogres, giants (etc.)

3.) It allows small folks to use the full gamut of weapons for their class, esp. wizards and rogues (whom small ones really got shafted)

4.) It reduces alot of unnecessary weapons: Halfling Siagham, Halfling Nunchucku, Halfling Kama, Halfling Cutlass, etc. These were only listed to mimic the effect of resized weapons. Wasted space that could be summed up with one additional column.

5.) It makes fighting larger and smaller foes with magical gear harder to loot.

6.) Its another De-tolkienization of D&D and a unneeded sacred cow. Good Riddance.

Well, reasons 1-5 are pretty compelling, so I think I'll probably end up moving to the 3.5 weapon sizes before too long.

Thanks to everyone who gave me feedback on this. It's most appreciated.

 

[The Sigil]

I like the sizing because it MAKES SENSE...

1.) Halflings would make longswords, greatswords, or other weapons properly sized for themselves, as opposed to using human small weapons.

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

2.) Ditto with Ogres, giants (etc.)

No, a giant would just look at a human-size longsword and consider it a "dagger."

3.) It allows small folks to use the full gamut of weapons for their class, esp. wizards and rogues (whom small ones really got shafted)

This one I agree with... a halfling wizard unable to use a quarterstaff? Blasphemy!

4.) It reduces alot of unnecessary weapons: Halfling Siagham, Halfling Nunchucku, Halfling Kama, Halfling Cutlass, etc. These were only listed to mimic the effect of resized weapons. Wasted space that could be summed up with one additional column.

Agreed.

5.) It makes fighting larger and smaller foes with magical gear harder to loot.

True, but not logical. Look at Sting - an elvish "dagger" that a halfling uses as a shortsword... because to a halfling, it feels like a shortsword. I am a "hulking" six-foot-plus and when handling toy "longswords" made for my two-year old (thus scaled to a halfling), they're not "weird," they're just "shortswords."

At the end of the day, I think the difference is semantics, honestly. What a halfling would call a "greatsword" is what a human would call a "longsword" is what an ogre would call a "shortsword" is what a giant (or Australian) would call a "knife."

Here's the rub, as I see it... In 3.0, everyone called it a "longsword" - that was the name of a weapon of that particular dimensions. A giant called it a "longsword" and knew that a "longsword" was really a small little blade relative to him. A halfling called it a "longsword" and knew it was a giant big blade relative to him. In 3.5, everyone calls it a "small greatsword" or a "medium-sized longsword" or a "large shortsword" or a "huge knife" or a "colossal toothpick." The physical weapon remains the same; all that changes is the semantics. Which is kind of silly, if you ask me... why have several names for what is functionally exactly the same weapon?

Personally, I think the whole thing is rather silly. Neither system is without its flaws, and neither system is a verisimilitude. That said, I prefer the 3.0 system... whether a giant or halfling says "longsword," you know they're referring to a blade about 3-4' in total length, rather than having to scale up and down.

What sort of blade does a colossal fighter use in 3.0 then? Heh... how about an "ubersword" (the progression for the prefix on the word "sword" going from "short" to "long" to "great" to "stupendous" to "uber" or somesuch)?

Like I said, both systems are not without flaws, but I think semantically it's more attractive to have "longsword" mean 3-4' blades, not "size 66-75% of the height of the speaker.' And of course, there's the whole "reach" problem... to take it a step further, does a Fine or Diminutive longspear have a 10' reach too?

--The Sigil

 

[mearls]

No, a giant would just look at a human-size longsword and consider it a "dagger."

Precisely. The fundamental problem with the current rules for weapon sizes is that they are inefficient. Under the old rules, you could describe a weapon with the following stats:

Name
Size
Damage
Critical Multiplier

Under the 3.5 system, you need the following bits of data:

Name
Size
Light/One-handed/two-handed
Small Damage
Medium Damage
Critical Multiplier

The 3.5 system also begs a multitude of questions. Why doesn't changing size change a weapon's reach? Why doesn't it change its critical multiplier? After all, a smaller longsword probably has much less chance of penetrating to a vital spot on a big creature. They do less damage, so shouldn't their other traits change?

On top of everything, the actual mechanics of shifting weapons to larger size categories aren't any easier, and since we don't have stats for all size categories for all weapons, we have to make create them on our own anyway. It's also terribly confusing to use the same name for a weapon that, depending on its size, has different damage characteristics.

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

 

[shadow]

I hate 3.5e weapon size rules! They are supposed to add more "realism" to the game (as if D&D ever was "realistic"), but they end up just making the game more confusing. My main problem is with reach weapons such as polearms and longspears. Does a small longspear still get a 10' reach? How about a tiny longspear? I don't believe that this issue was every addressed in the rules. Moreover, it just bogs down the game with extra complications. Your halfling rogue can't use that magic dagger he just found because it's "medium sized" and thus the wrong size. Likewise an experienced human fighter can't fight effectively with a halfling longsword because it's the wrong size.
One can argue that the rules add a degree of "realism" to the game. Afterall, realistically, a short sword made for a human would be balanced for a human and have a wider grip for human hands, so to be unwieldly for a halfling to try to use as a long sword. However, in my experience, much like the optional and much maligned encumbrance and bulk rules (from Player's Options), these rules just tend to add extra problems to the game, rather than adding any positives.

 

[Luddite]

Here is my take on the new weapons sizes...

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.

What 3.5 did was explicitly state that a Large Dagger is a Large Dagger. Sure on the tables a Large Dagger looks like a Medium Shortsword. And the DMG does go into what can be consider equivlent.

The 3.5 weapons system can now answer the question "What is a Simple/Martial weapon for a Large/Huge/Colosal/Tiny creature?" Then a DM can go and say, after the party loots said weapon, and say the creatures weapon is equvilent to a Medium Foo.

-The Luddite

 

[VorpalBunny]

Precisely. The fundamental problem with the current rules for weapon sizes is that they are inefficient. Under the old rules, you could describe a weapon with the following stats:

Name
Size
Damage
Critical Multiplier

Under the 3.5 system, you need the following bits of data:

Name
Size
Light/One-handed/two-handed
Small Damage
Medium Damage
Critical Multiplier

The 3.5 system also begs a multitude of questions. Why doesn't changing size change a weapon's reach? Why doesn't it change its critical multiplier? After all, a smaller longsword probably has much less chance of penetrating to a vital spot on a big creature. They do less damage, so shouldn't their other traits change?

On top of everything, the actual mechanics of shifting weapons to larger size categories aren't any easier, and since we don't have stats for all size categories for all weapons, we have to make create them on our own anyway. It's also terribly confusing to use the same name for a weapon that, depending on its size, has different damage characteristics.

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

Umm, what he said. We house rule back to the 3.0 size rules.

 

[mearls]

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 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.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

IMHO, I prefer the 3.5 rules, but only when applying the variant rule for size-equivalent weapons (e.g., a Large shortsword is equal to a Medium longsword and a Small greatsword). I kind of wish some more weapons were listed on the chart, esp. some missile weapons (would a Medium shortbow be considered a Small longbow?, etc.).

Reach & ranges is another issue, but as things are now (w/ 3.5), I can live with it.