Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1329995" data-attributes="member: 2013">So in other words, these are rules from optional supplements that were prepared (and influenced) by the upcoming design changes in 3.5e?&nbsp; I'm sorry, but I have to disallow from argument anything in those books as &quot;3.0&quot; in this discussion.&nbsp; As an analogy, the Fiend Folio changes &quot;Shapechanger&quot; from a full-fledged creature type into a subtype.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Books published right before the switch really shouldn't be included in this discussion.&nbsp; Stick to what is in the 3.0 PHB, MM, DMG and 3.5 PHB, MM, and DMG.Simply put, &quot;scaling weapons&quot; - such as a &quot;Large Dagger&quot; simply do not exist in core 3.0 rules - they only come into being in optional supplements, which were &quot;forward-looking&quot; to 3.5 anyway.&nbsp; A &quot;Large Dagger&quot; is most definitely a 3.5 construction, not a 3.0 construction.Again, not correct, because there is no &quot;Large Dagger&quot; in 3.0 - you are confusing the systems.It depends VERY much on how you say it... saying:an &quot;Ogre's Greatsword&quot; 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:&quot;an Ogre's Greatsword&quot; - i.e., a &quot;regular-sized&quot; Greatsword that happens to belong to an ogre.If I am fighting a group of ogres, and you say, &quot;an ogre's greatsword,&quot; I might see it as a Huge weapon (I probably wouldn't, but I might).&nbsp; If the ogres are dead, and I'm rifling through their loot, and I come across a blade that you describe as &quot;an ogre's greatsword,&quot; I probably visualize it as a Large Weapon.I think that this comes down to a matter of semantics.&nbsp; When I hear &quot;longsword&quot; I think &quot;3-4' blade.&quot;&nbsp; My brain's version of &quot;longsword&quot; 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.&nbsp; You think &quot;blade that is 66-75% of the height of the weilder;&quot; 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 &quot;longsword&quot; to be the owner &quot;in a vacuum&quot; because I'm sure you'll argue it's because I'm a M-size creature LOL).&nbsp; Maybe I'm size-prejudiced towards size M creatures, I dunno. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />To put it another way, suppose you were an ogre child raised in a village of halflings.&nbsp; For your 20th birthday, the halflings presented you with a sword that was as large as their greatest warrior could wield.&nbsp; All your life, you have seen these blades, and everyone calls them &quot;greatswords.&quot;&nbsp; Even though this is a light weapon for you... in 3.5 rules, a &quot;Large Slashing Shortsword&quot; you will call it a &quot;greatsword&quot; as well.The difference is, you're tying terminology to &quot;ownership&quot; or &quot;viewership&quot; and not to the intrinsic object itself.&nbsp; I am trying to define the object itself, independent of owner or viewer.&nbsp; The simplest way to do that is, in fact, to go with Needlesword, Microsword, etc.&nbsp; That way, whether a storm giant or a pixie says, &quot;needlesword&quot; I know exactly whether or not I can pick up the weapon and use it.&nbsp; The verisimilitude is lost somewhat there perhaps (though, using my ogre in a halfling village, it's not TOO far a stretch).&nbsp; But for me, verisimilitude is MUCH more lost when the giant tells me, &quot;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?&quot;Um, you missed the point.&nbsp; You do this list in the DMG once and only once.&nbsp; A new class's weapons list remains the same - you list the &quot;medium-sized&quot; weapon name, on the assumption that most characters are medium sized.&nbsp; To use an example, ClassX is proficient with Longswords and no other weapons.&nbsp; 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 &quot;Longsword&quot; list a proficiency &quot;Fullblade.&quot;&nbsp; Each class doesn't have to have a listing for every size category, you simply list the &quot;medium&quot; weapons and off-size characters go to the appendix to &quot;swap out&quot; to the appropriate weapon.&nbsp; One list, one appendix.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; An expanded weapons table, with more variety in weapon sizes, along with a table of &quot;if your class gives you proficiency in X and you are size Y, substitute instead Weapon Z&quot; clearly and quickly solves the problem.&nbsp; That is the way it should have been done.&nbsp; What we have now is an approximation of that, the difference is simply &quot;if your class gives you proficiency in X and you are size Y, substitute instead Weapon Y X&quot; - while imperfectly defining the object that is Weapon Y X (due to the problems illustrated earlier).Does that help explain things better.&nbsp; Calling something a Large Greatsword is no different than calling it a Fullblade (or whatever); the difference is merely semantics.&nbsp; However, it dilutes the value of the term &quot;greatsword&quot; since you can't just look at &quot;Large Greatsword&quot; and know the parameters of the object; you instead have to look of the parameters of &quot;greatsword&quot; and then also apply the &quot;large&quot; template to it.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 1329995, member: 2013"] 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 [i]do not exist in [b]core[/b] 3.0 rules[/i] - they only come into being in [b]optional[/b] supplements, which were "forward-looking" to 3.5 anyway. A "Large Dagger" is most definitely a 3.5 construction, not a 3.0 construction. Again, not correct, because there is no "Large Dagger" in 3.0 - you are confusing the systems. 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?" 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 [b]should have[/b] 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification