D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 weapon sizing: compelling reasons?
- Thread starter francisca
- Start date
tzor
First Post
I like the 3.5 weapon size rules. I don't like the way 3.5 describes the 3.5 weapon size rules. One I got a "handle" on the problem it all made sense.
There is more to a weapon than its business end. The difference between a giant's dagger, a medium's longsword and a small's two hander isn't per se the size of the blade, but the size and thickness of the handle.
Swords designed for bigger hands are hard to hold with smaller hands. Likewise the opposite is true as well, swords designed for smaller hands are hard to hold with larger hands. An extreeme example of this case is the tiny plastic cocktail swords that normally are used against olives. Try wielding that tiny handle.
Some other elements of size are not addressed, such as what should happen to reach. I don't think that this is a major problem, and I could probably fake a good house rule if I needed to. But once you look at it as a handle/size problem the rule makes a whole lot of sense. At least it did to me.
There is more to a weapon than its business end. The difference between a giant's dagger, a medium's longsword and a small's two hander isn't per se the size of the blade, but the size and thickness of the handle.
Swords designed for bigger hands are hard to hold with smaller hands. Likewise the opposite is true as well, swords designed for smaller hands are hard to hold with larger hands. An extreeme example of this case is the tiny plastic cocktail swords that normally are used against olives. Try wielding that tiny handle.
Some other elements of size are not addressed, such as what should happen to reach. I don't think that this is a major problem, and I could probably fake a good house rule if I needed to. But once you look at it as a handle/size problem the rule makes a whole lot of sense. At least it did to me.
I must be a genius, because as a player it looks pretty damn simple to go down the central column of any given weapon table and note the damage of a weapon of a given size, assuming I'm rolling up a phb-derived medium/small creature. And given that, the later the level, the less worthwhile it is to pick up a weapon off a defeated monster, the notion of added complexity doesn't seem to be particularly real.
As a dm, however, i'm very impressed with the degree to which the new rules accomodate outfiting humanoids as i see fit, and, given the fact that I will likely use a lot of them, the clarity of these rules will provide a steady stream of added utility over the old versus the pretty non-existent complication it provides to (literate) players.
But then, i'm a genius.
As a dm, however, i'm very impressed with the degree to which the new rules accomodate outfiting humanoids as i see fit, and, given the fact that I will likely use a lot of them, the clarity of these rules will provide a steady stream of added utility over the old versus the pretty non-existent complication it provides to (literate) players.
But then, i'm a genius.
The Sigil said:*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
I would agree with the mindset, though I think, unless i'm misreading you, you are contradicting yourself. The new system uses the type of dynamic you describe above, giving clear, consistent rules about how to scale weapons up and down in damage, giving positive or negative returns for size. This isn't symantics, it has a very real effect on game balance; it isn't simply about the few variables you stated, but about the difference in utility a given asset should have for differen wielders.
So are you arguing all weapons to be generated dynamically? I don't think so, because you would prefer to keep the labels on certain weapons (longsword, etc) and you aren't arguing for all ther permutations to be added (very inefficient given the possibility of additional non-core weapons from supps). You simply don't want qualified similar labels for the new (i.e. large, etc) weapons? How weird......
Last edited:
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
diaglo said:
That's fine. He's proficient.
But the weapon is still the wrong size, and he still takes a -2 penalty for one category difference.
Thiis isn't a proficiency issue. It's a completely separate penalty from the non-proficiency penalty; one that the feat does not address.
HellHound said:
What about the unresolved issue of an Ogre wielding a Medium longspear?
The 3.5 rules on reach state that a Large creature wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can strike 11-20 but not 5-10. A Medium longspear is a reach weapon of inappropriate size. Does it double his reach or not?
What of a human wielding a Tiny longspear as a Light weapon? Ten feet, or five? The "appropriate size" clause is only applied to Large creatures, not to Medium ones.
-Hyp.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
The Sigil said:
There are a bunch of Giants in the 3E Monster Manual who disagree with you, and who have Huge clubs, javelins, greatclubs, greataxes and greatswords, and Gargantuan morningstars, greatswords, composite longbows, and warhammers to back up their position.
In the core 3.0 rules.
-Hyp.
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
As Psion mentioned, there are certain "differences in utility" to be expected, but you already have a considerable level of abstraction in things like hit points, damage having no ill effect on a character's abilities, etc. To wit, why bother with such a small level of abstraction as "grip size" given that most of the rest of the system is not nearly so granular?jasamcarl said:
Very inefficient? Yes. But not as inefficient as having four names for the same thing (as mentioned, "Large Slashing Shortsword," "Huge Slashing Dagger," "Small Greatsword" etc.)
All the permutations *could* conceivably be added, yes. I'm not saying they should be or even that they have to be. On the other hand, once a permutation is "named," it's probably a good idea to stick with that name.
The point is not about getting every permutation on the "first shot." The point is, by getting more than a 1-to-1 correspondence of Names to Mechanical effects, you are adding unnecessary clutter to game system.
Look again at the thread title: it references compelling reasons. Does the change "work?" Maybe, maybe not. Was there a pressing and overwhelming (i.e., compelling) need to change it from 3.0? I'm not at ALL convinced that there was... and a change that breaks a 1-to-1 correspondence and adds to the complexity is NOT a good one in my mind anyway.
--The Sigil
Last edited:
Hypersmurf said:
They certainly did - and until Savage Species and the A&EG, there were no rules to help you create them yourself, or how they should be handled.
Even when they did SS and the A&EG, they still failed to handle the proficiency problem! Can a wizard wield a Large dagger? Can a halfling wield man-sized weapons or only halfling-sized weapons?
The advantage with the 3.5E system is that you can work out the rules for any size of weapon quickly and easily, and you don't need dozens of reference tables (as Mike Mearls suggests).
The disadvantage is that they didn't address the Reach, Range and Ranged-Weapon issues as they did in 3E - just port the rules over, I think!
Cheers!
The Sigil said:
How the hell is it inefficient to have a stated base weapon and then rules to derive permutation? Having to list every last stupid stat block with a hundred different names would be far less efficient in terms of page count, complexity etc., and wouldn't even deal with later supplementary weapons.
And by your notion of granularity, having a feat like 'flying kick' for the monk would have added 'needless' complexity because unarmed combat already cover flying kick. Its not about names/fluff, but mechanical options. And your completly arbitrary 1-1 correspondance principle would already have been broken by templated creatures. "Two word description as oppossed to one!? I just wet myself".
Please address my point. The new system offers options for the dm and very little additional complexity for players assuming you are not mentally retarded? What's the problem, ambiguities conscerning reach aside?
Last edited:
