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

[Hypersmurf]

A Wizard has proficiency in Dagger. He can wield all daggers regardless of size.

The Huge Dagger is two sizes larger than the Medium Dagger he is used to; so -4 penalty to hit. (The same as being unproficient in it, notice).

The Huge Dagger is a d8, Piercing, crit 19-20/x2 weapon, two-handed in the hands of a human wizard.

Piercing/Slashing. Daggers got one size category bigger but improved their damage type in 3.5.

So how are these rules more clear than 3E... where the Wizard had proficiency in dagger, and could wield all daggers, regardless of size?

-Hyp.

 

[MerricB]

Piercing/Slashing. Daggers got one size category bigger but improved their damage type in 3.5.

So how are these rules more clear than 3E... where the Wizard had proficiency in dagger, and could wield all daggers, regardless of size?

-Hyp.

No mention was made of proficiencies or penalties. Thus, the Wizard had no penalty to hit with a dagger of that size. (3E = Medium Dagger).

One could see this by the fact a halfling had no penalty for using man-sized weapons; the rest of the monster descriptions implied a small humanoid would have no penalty for using small-sized weapons.

Cheers!

 

[Hypersmurf]

No mention was made of proficiencies or penalties. Thus, the Wizard had no penalty to hit with a dagger of that size. (3E = Medium Dagger).

Certainly. I'm not arguing the lack of a penalty. You complained of a lack of clarity in the 3E sizing rules; I don't see how the rules for a wizard wielding a Medium (or even Large) dagger in 3E are less clear than those for a wizard wielding a Huge dagger in 3.5.

The fact that the inappropriate size penalty for the Huge dagger matches the non-proficiency penalty of a Medium longsword is coincidence; the inappropriate size penalty of a Large dagger is -2, and bears no relation to a non-proficiency penalty.

The existence or magnitude of penalties are irrelevant to clarity.

-Hyp.

 

[MerricB]

Certainly. I'm not arguing the lack of a penalty. You complained of a lack of clarity in the 3E sizing rules; I don't see how the rules for a wizard wielding a Medium (or even Large) dagger in 3E are less clear than those for a wizard wielding a Huge dagger in 3.5.

The fact that the inappropriate size penalty for the Huge dagger matches the non-proficiency penalty of a Medium longsword is coincidence; the inappropriate size penalty of a Large dagger is -2, and bears no relation to a non-proficiency penalty.

The existence or magnitude of penalties are irrelevant to clarity.

-Hyp.

Oh, very well.

The rules are clear, and completely flawed.

A wizard can easily wield a Large Dagger (d10 damage) with no penalty to hit.

Cheers!

 

[diaglo]

No mention was made of proficiencies or penalties. Thus, the Wizard had no penalty to hit with a dagger of that size. (3E = Medium Dagger).

One could see this by the fact a halfling had no penalty for using man-sized weapons; the rest of the monster descriptions implied a small humanoid would have no penalty for using small-sized weapons.

to me the light vs. normal vs. heavy stuff kind of made it difficult for a halfling or other Small sized character to use many weapons in th 2000ed.

but i still have a hard time as has been stated figuring out...well not really, but it added another level of complication...the fact that some weapons now change slashing/piercing categories...or that the range of a Small Longbow is still the same as a Medium Longbow even tho it does the damage of a Medium Shortbow.

 

[Hypersmurf]

... the fact that some weapons now change slashing/piercing categories...

Hmm? Unless you're using variant rules, they don't.

A longsword is a Slashing weapon, whether it's Fine or Colossal.

A shortsword is a Piercing weapon, likewise.

-Hyp.

 

[MerricB]

or that the range of a Small Longbow is still the same as a Medium Longbow even tho it does the damage of a Medium Shortbow.

There's a few areas where the rules were introduced in 3E, but not transferred to the 3.5E rules.

The idea of describing a weapon by the size of its intended user is much better than the 3E system (for scaling reasons), but there are still a few things that have been left out of the rulebooks.

Cheers!

 

[Pax]

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

No, not even close.

Halfling hands are smaller than a human's. Therefor, the hilt of a halfling greatsword would have a smaller diameter than the hilt of a human longsword.

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

... and further, a dagger that the giant coulnt'd grip normally, 'cause the hilt would only fit half of the giant's hand.

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)?

A Collosal Longsword.

The problem is, when you introduce the idea of weapons properly caled to creatures bigger than medium size. In 3.0, the biggest sword there was, would be a greatsword -- a large weapon. It was a one-handed weapon for a Giant.

So, what ... no giant in the universe ever considered making a really big sword, which required him to wield it in two hands ... ?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Halfling hands are smaller than a human's. Therefor, the hilt of a halfling greatsword would have a smaller diameter than the hilt of a human longsword.

Once again, in a system (D&D) which doesn't bother with hit locations, impairment of capabilities from wounds etc. etc. why spend effort on the relative diameter of weapon hilts?

At what point does the law of diminishing returns apply, I wonder?

 

[diaglo]

At what point does the law of diminishing returns apply, I wonder?

that should be rhetorical. drop the question mark.