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

[The Sigil]

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?

The one-to-one correspondence principle is not broken by templated creatures. A templated creature is not in one-to-one correspondence mechanically with another creature. I don't apply the "fiendish" template to an orc and get a hobgoblin. Heck, I don't even apply the "level one fighter" template to an orc and get a "level one fighter-templated hobgoblin" (differences in Special Abilities).

I refer you again to the "duck rule." If it slashes like a longsword, damages like a longsword, and crits like a longsword, for all intents and purposes, it's a "longsword." In other words, if a bladed weapon can be used in one hand by a medium-size creature, but not a small-size creature, does 1d8 slashing damage, and crits on a 19-20, how is it functionally/mechanically different a longsword? If there's not a functional difference, why do we bother with a different name? That's what gets my dander up. It's counter-intuitive because it violates the "duck rule."

Again, I *do* see why it's useful, and I understand *how* the rules work, I simply don't understand *why* WotC chose to make them work in the way that they do when it is so needlessly redundant (and does *not* noticeably improve on the old system, especially on such things as light weapons... I am a medium-sized character... is a Huge Dagger (requiring 2 hands of me) still a "light weapon?" What about a Fine Greatsword (which I can hold in 2 fingers)? Needless complexity to add the "light" quality to weapons when the old way, "if it's a size smaller, it's light" worked fine).

I don't think either of us is convincing the other... argument is an exercise that simply serves to entrench the interested parties more firmly in the belief that they are in the right in their position, so I'm going to drop it here.

--The Sigil

 

[MerricB]

I refer you again to the "duck rule." If it slashes like a longsword, damages like a longsword, and crits like a longsword, for all intents and purposes, it's a "longsword."

Please read page 27 in the 3.5E DMG.

Again, I *do* see why it's useful, and I understand *how* the rules work, I simply don't understand *why* WotC chose to make them work in the way that they do when it is so needlessly redundant (and does *not* noticeably improve on the old system, especially on such things as light weapons... I am a medium-sized character... is a Huge Dagger (requiring 2 hands of me) still a "light weapon?"

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand the 3.5E rules with a question like that.

Weapon Effort categories in 3.5E:
* Too small (unusable)
* Light
* 1-Handed
* 2-Handed
* Too big (unusable)

A Huge Dagger (2 sizes bigger than my medium) goes up two sizes on the effort table - so it is no longer light for me. There are two size differences, so I have a -4 penalty if I use it as a dagger. If my DM permits the optional Weapon Equivalence rules in the DMG (properly extended), then I can use it as a Medium Longsword.

Not difficult, rather quick, and doesn't use up much space for the rules.

Cheers!

 

[jasamcarl]

The one-to-one correspondence principle is not broken by templated creatures. A templated creature is not in one-to-one correspondence mechanically with another creature. I don't apply the "fiendish" template to an orc and get a hobgoblin. Heck, I don't even apply the "level one fighter" template to an orc and get a "level one fighter-templated hobgoblin" (differences in Special Abilities).

I refer you again to the "duck rule." If it slashes like a longsword, damages like a longsword, and crits like a longsword, for all intents and purposes, it's a "longsword." In other words, if a bladed weapon can be used in one hand by a medium-size creature, but not a small-size creature, does 1d8 slashing damage, and crits on a 19-20, how is it functionally/mechanically different a longsword? If there's not a functional difference, why do we bother with a different name? That's what gets my dander up. It's counter-intuitive because it violates the "duck rule."

Again, I *do* see why it's useful, and I understand *how* the rules work, I simply don't understand *why* WotC chose to make them work in the way that they do when it is so needlessly redundant (and does *not* noticeably improve on the old system, especially on such things as light weapons... I am a medium-sized character... is a Huge Dagger (requiring 2 hands of me) still a "light weapon?" What about a Fine Greatsword (which I can hold in 2 fingers)? Needless complexity to add the "light" quality to weapons when the old way, "if it's a size smaller, it's light" worked fine).

I don't think either of us is convincing the other... argument is an exercise that simply serves to entrench the interested parties more firmly in the belief that they are in the right in their position, so I'm going to drop it here.

--The Sigil

Except that your duck rule doesn't even hold up to scrutiny. You might not have noticed all those exotic weapons and some of those martial/simple that have special rules in the description. There are more than a few parameters for weapons. These special cases can be scaled using the current rules..they couldn't with the old. You need to take a closer look at your core books. And the cases where the scaling results in a preexisting rules are already covered in the varient equivilancy chart noted by Merric.

 

[MerricB]

Except that your duck rule doesn't even hold up to scrutiny. You might not have noticed all those exotic weapons and some of those martial/simple that have special rules in the description. There are more than a few parameters for weapons. These special cases can be scaled using the current rules..they couldn't with the old. You need to take a closer look at your core books. And the cases where the scaling results in a preexisting rules are already covered in the varient equivilancy chart noted by Merric.

Incidentally, look at the different versions of the Fullblade in Sword and Fist, the S&F errata, and the Arms and Equipment Guide.

The Fullblade is nothing more than a 3.5E Large Bastard Sword; but 3E had huge trouble in handling it.

Cheers!

 

[jasamcarl]

Incidentally, look at the different versions of the Fullblade in Sword and Fist, the S&F errata, and the Arms and Equipment Guide.

The Fullblade is nothing more than a 3.5E Large Bastard Sword; but 3E had huge trouble in handling it.

Cheers!

Exactly. Under the old system you would have to add a new name and an entirely new weapon stat block. I love this new system. Puts options in the hands of both player and dms...

 

[The Sigil]

Please read page 27 in the 3.5E DMG.

Didn't pick up the 3.5e rulebooks, just the SRD. Would you please cite the appropriate reference in the SRD?

*Not* trying to be difficult; I would like to see it and learn, but *can't* reference the 3.5e DMG, just the 3.5e SRD on my end.

--The Sigil

 

[reiella]

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!

Hmm? There weren't? I could swear in the 3.0 MM it gave the damage size scale table, although it was may be argued that was 'implied' to refer to natural weapons only (however, ironically, it is the same as the weapon damage scale used elsewhere).

Then there is Righteous Might in the PHB, which explicitly states how regular weapons increase in size, and also increase their damage die.

In 3.0, it simply was a more unknown rule, and one of the most kludgy rules that existed therein (in my opinion ).

[ Edit / Add ]
Clarification, the post was in reference to the claim that weapon sizes were introduced as Non-Core/Post-Core rules content .

 

[mearls]

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.

I wouldn't call the rules on p. 113 of the PHB all that clear, primarily because they don't address the issue of what happens when a creature uses a weapon of the inappropriate size.

The mention of reach on p. 137 doesn't mention anything about weapon sizes.

The diagrams on pages 308 - 310 of the DMG show a creature's threatened area with a reach weapon, but again it doesn't mention anything about what happens when a creature uses a weapon of the inappropriate size.

As far as I can tell, a reach weapon doubles a creature's reach regardless of its size. In essence, a reach weapon that is one size category too small for you could be a pretty good deal, since it lets you use a shield and gain reach. Let's ignore the wonkiness that reach weapons now seem to grow or shrink to match their user's size.

 

[mearls]

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).

You wouldn't need dozens. You'd need six, and you'd never have to work out the scaled damage of any of the weapons in the PHB.

And we wouldn't need optional rules to figure out the reach for a Large longspear in the hands of something other than a Large creature.

And we wouldn't need rules to list exactly which weapon are two or one handed.

And we wouldn't need house rules to determine range increments for larger and smaller ranged weapons.

And you wouldn't have situations where smaller or larger weapons are superior to the version that is "appropriate" to your character's size.

And you wouldn't have weird situations where feats taken for a weapon apply to other weapons that are supposedly too small or too large to properly handle.

And you wouldn't have to guess a weapon's size when Dungeon lists it in a treasure hoard.

And you wouldn't have situations where swords with the exact damage, weight, and crit multiplier are different weapons.

None of these problems existed in the old system, and none of them were necessary to extend and improve the old system to cover the areas the new one "fixes."

The funny thing is, the more you add optional rules to fix the current rules, the more it looks like the system I proposed for the old rules.

 

[jasamcarl]

You wouldn't need dozens. You'd need six, and you'd never have to work out the scaled damage of any of the weapons in the PHB.

And we wouldn't need optional rules to figure out the reach for a Large longspear in the hands of something other than a Large creature.

And we wouldn't need rules to list exactly which weapon are two or one handed.

And we wouldn't need house rules to determine range increments for larger and smaller ranged weapons.

And you wouldn't have situations where smaller or larger weapons are superior to the version that is "appropriate" to your character's size.

And you wouldn't have weird situations where feats taken for a weapon apply to other weapons that are supposedly too small or too large to properly handle.

And you wouldn't have to guess a weapon's size when Dungeon lists it in a treasure hoard.

And you wouldn't have situations where swords with the exact damage, weight, and crit multiplier are different weapons.

None of these problems existed in the old system, and none of them were necessary to extend and improve the old system to cover the areas the new one "fixes."

The funny thing is, the more you add optional rules to fix the current rules, the more it looks like the system I proposed for the old rules.

Oh please. Most of those 'weaknesses' aren't even rules centric, but aesthetic in nature, as they deal with notions of 'realism' as oppossed to rules fidelity, and the omissions conscerning reach could be easily clarified. You haven't made one salient point conscerning the validity of the rules themselves, but are instead attacking the editorial ommissions oversights. And you last point completly ignores Merrics DMG citation.

Come back with a real piont. The rules are flexible, provide more options then some overly long chart, allow exotic weapons to scale (something that your approach would make ridiculously inefficient page count wise), and all and all, are simply grand.