D&D 3E/3.5 3E versus 3.5E: Weapon Size

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which system did you, or do you, prefer? And why?

Originally, I greatly preferred the 3Ed version, and then I got a RW illustration of why the 3.5Ed rules were better.

I have a skean dhu- a double-edged Scottish boot knife- that is identical in length to a museum replica scale model of a Toledo basket hilted longsword.

But despite the similar length- which would make them the same weapon in 3Ed- all of their other dimensions were radically different.

The skean dhu's blade is about 1" wide at the base. Its hilt takes up half of its length, and is nearly 3" around.

The replica longsword has a blade that is perhaps 1/4" at its widest, and the hilt that takes up less than 1/8th of its length could be grasped between my thumb and forefinger.

A pixie fighting with the replica would look like a fencer. A pixie using my skean dhu would look like he was trying to fight with a scale appropriate caber.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Given how powerful small PCs are (and how D&D makes them much better at combat than a humanoid that size would realistically be), I have no problem with that.

*Blink Blink*

Do you play your games in the Twilight Zone?

 

[Dausuul]

*Blink Blink*

Do you play your games in the Twilight Zone?

They get +1 to AC and +1 to hit. It's not an enormous benefit, but it's noticeable. Plus mondo bonuses to stealth skills, and I think a few other things. The smaller weapon damage die is a counterbalance to all that. (Of course, small-sized casters don't have to worry about weapon dice; this is why gnomes make the best wizards in any campaign that doesn't allow grey elves.)

 

[KahnyaGnorc]

I prefer 3.0 weapon sizes, but both should have their place.

In a world dominated by medium-sized creatures (Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, and the like), most weapons would be medium-sized ones. Ogres would be wielding greatswords as 1-handed weapons.

However, those of other sizes that have their own weapon-forging tradition, like the more intelligent giants or a halfling civilization (as opposed to halflings living amongst the larger races), would have weapons sized to them.

The world of Arcana Unearthed, for example, would be heavily populated by large-sized weapons, due to giant rule. (and medium-sized characters would likely be proficient in wielding large-sized longswords as greatswords)

In a world with both types, I'd likely drop the penalties for using larger or smaller weapons, unless they were really big or small (humans with huge weapons or small-sized daggers).

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I can't comment much about 3.0 since I haven't played it, but I believe that wielding a larger version of the same exact weapon shouldn't impose a -2 penalty. A Large longsword should be wieldable by a Medium creature in 2 hands no problem. It's pretty much the same as using a greatsword, it's just that there might be some slight differences in the way it's constructed that give it different threat ranges is all.

Hm, on second thought changing the size and having it give a -2 penalty might actually be realistic, in some cases. Even if a character is proficient with a longsword, he's going to have some issues with one larger than he's used to. Gah, I don't know what I think now. X_X

 

[Ahnehnois]

*Blink Blink*

Do you play your games in the Twilight Zone?

The +1 attack and AC are huge and the Hide bonus is significant for some characters. The only drawbacks small characters have are vulnerability to combat maneuvers, low carry weight, and slower speed, none of which come up very often. Small characters are generally the best spellcasters, best rogues, and can be halfway decent fighters despite the absurdity of the image of a gnome clubbing an orc. By all rights, a character that's two or three feet tall should have a lot more than -2 strength relative to a human!

To my understanding, the halfling is generally considered the third most powerful core race behind dwarf and human, much better than the elf or the half-races. The strongheart halfling (an FR race with a bonus feat instead of +1 to save) is generally considered more powerful than the human and is a favorite on charop boards. Some other noncore small races (whisper gnomes, dragonwraught kobolds, etc.) are quite overpowered. Players might avoid halflings and gnomes because they don't like being mocked, but as far as how the rules represent them they're pretty darn good. Am I missing something?

 

[Vegepygmy]

The only drawbacks small characters have are vulnerability to combat maneuvers, low carry weight, and slower speed, none of which come up very often.

All I can say is that you play a very different style of D&D than I do. (And you missed smaller damage dice for weapons.)

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

And they tend to across the board get -2 str. And -4 to resist pretty much every combat maneuver is pretty big. Way more of a hit than hide +4 is a boon. Smaller characters are also more likely to be subject to nasty special effects and attacks, like windstorms, the Snatch feat, or getting eaten.

 

[delericho]

It's not even clear it's realistic. Is there actually such a thing as a Small rapier, or a Large greatsword?

It's likely that there are some few examples of each in existence, but they would be extreme cases, and probably not intended for 'real world' use as weapons. (For example, a child's "training rapier", or whatever.)

It's also perhaps worth noting that what D&D calls a "longsword" isn't one weapon; it's a broad category of weapons. Indeed, there's no clear way to determine exactly where a shortsword becomes a longsword, where a longsword becomes a bastard sword, or where a bastard sword becomes a greatsword.

Indeed, given variations in height, reach, centre of gravity, and so on, it's likely your Fighter wouldn't just grab any old sword from the shelf - he'd spend some time trying out swords to find the one that is right for him. To you, or I, or the common guardsman, the variations probably don't matter too much, but the PCs are the best of the best, so it's a rather different question. (There's an argument for ruling that a masterwork weapon is only masterwork when used by the person for whom it was made.)

Given all of that, and given how much else is abstracted by the rules, I'm inclined to file size differences (at least of one step) as largely being "not worth worrying about".

 

[Empirate]

I can't comment much about 3.0 since I haven't played it, but I believe that wielding a larger version of the same exact weapon shouldn't impose a -2 penalty. A Large longsword should be wieldable by a Medium creature in 2 hands no problem. It's pretty much the same as using a greatsword, it's just that there might be some slight differences in the way it's constructed that give it different threat ranges is all.

Hm, on second thought changing the size and having it give a -2 penalty might actually be realistic, in some cases. Even if a character is proficient with a longsword, he's going to have some issues with one larger than he's used to. Gah, I don't know what I think now. X_X

Granted, there are examples of weapons that will work at different sizes. A Battleaxe might be usable as a Greataxe for a Goblin, or a Gratclub as a Club by an Ogre.

Longswords and Greatswords, however, are radically different in the way they're wielded. A large part of a Greatsword's blade has a dull edge, and is supposed to be gripped in combat. Also, Greatswords have much longer hilts, even relatively speaking. If you ever look into a medieval fencing instructions book to see how Greatswords were actually employed in combat, you'll see that they work very, very differently from Longswords.

In fact, I'm not even sure they should be doing more damage than a straightforward Longsword in D&D - they're a bit unwieldy, but much more flexible in what you can do with them. If I were to model them, I'd probably give them the option to do bludgeoning damage, and a big bonus to certain combat maneuvers, downsize them to 1d8 or 2d4 damage, and maybe even require an Exotic Weapon Proficiency.