Advice wanted: 3.5 weapon sizing

[Storyteller01]

No, actually they're not.

In 3e, a halfling rogue could wield a shortsword. This was the equivalent of a human wielding a longsword, but somehow the human rogue didn't have proficiency in longsword. Meanwhile, the halfling rogue couldn't wield a rapier... or a halfling-sized rapier. (A halfling rogue actually had no proficiency in rapier!)

In 3.5e with the weapon equivalancies, that "medium shortsword" becomes a "small longsword", meaning the 3.5e halfling rogue doesn't have proficiency with it.

Cheers!

AAAaaaaa.... I see now.

 

[Storyteller01]

BFS

Huh??

EDIT: Never mind. Brain's on autopiltot today...

 

[Storyteller01]

According to 3e weapon rules, a wizard can use a medium dagger (that's one sized for a cloud giant) dealing 1d8 damage with no penalty; or even a large dagger (that's one sized for a 31+ HD Titan) dealing 2d6 damage. Cool, huh!

Are the 3.5e rules perfect? By no means. Definite holes still exist. They do, at least, provide a more unified system.

You have to admit, this is only true on an extreme level of interpretation. Most DM's would call the medium dagger a longsword, and the large dagger a greatsword (weapon equivalents). The same rule that fixes 3.5 also fixes 3.0, and with less math.

 

[Storyteller01]

In another example, a dagger is a light simple weapon that deals piercing or slashing damage, can be thrown, and has a 19-20 critical range. This should be the same regardless of size. It should always be that.

No offense, but why? Especially when weapons designers, creators, collectors all agree that shortswords are big knives by design, and swords are extension of that thought. Some can even be thrown (a large Bowie easily qualifies as a shortsword, size wise). Even IRL, the components of a dagger can only be loosely defined.

It makes sense when you think that every size of creature makes it's own weapons. Halflings don't have to rely on human hand-me-downs like the hobbits of Tolkien. They can make their OWN legendary epic weapons of orc-murder. The gnomes have as many masters of weapons as the humans and the elves, and they're not going to want to rely on one-handed daggers to get the job done.

But at the same time, such races are likely to come up with their own weapons and tactics, based on their size. The odds of Small critters using reach weapons is slim at best, if it's possible at all. I doubt they'd follow the human model (oh, for the days of the hoophack...)

Weapons are better seen as packages of qualities that you can add to your attack. Curcifying the notion that Longswords Deal 1d8 Damage may be hard, but I think the game is better for it.

I don't think the issue is the damage; it's the added level of complexity (however minute)
to endorse the fact that such races would make the exact same weapons, only smaller. Or that those using such weapons inappropriately should be penalized for it. Or, worse yet, that in a system of abstarcts the designers pick this detail to codify.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You have to admit, this is only true on an extreme level of interpretation. Most DM's would call the medium dagger a longsword, and the large dagger a greatsword (weapon equivalents). The same rule that fixes 3.5 also fixes 3.0, and with less math.

Well, the difference is that it stretches common sense. A dagger isn't the same thing as a smaller longsword, and a longsword isn't the same thing as a smaller greatsword. Daggers can pierce, and can be thrown. They're light. Longswords are one-handed, aren't weighted to be thrown, and can only slash. Greatswords are two-handed, aren't weighted to be thrown.

Think of how you would forge a dagger -- the process is different than forging a greatsword at a smaller size. A dagger is two-bladed, pointed, specially weighted...the greatsword needs backing, a long grip, a sturdiness that is a huge chunk of metal at the end. The longsword needs to be properly balanced, smooth and keen. Wielding a dagger doesn't involve much training, but using a longsword properly or a greatsword doens't come naturally, and requires special training.

In 3.0, these differences were overlooked. In 3.5, a longsword is a longsword is a longsword.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Especially when weapons designers, creators, collectors all agree that shortswords are big knives by design, and swords are extension of that thought. Some can even be thrown (a large Bowie easily qualifies as a shortsword, size wise). Even IRL, the components of a dagger can only be loosely defined.

Because IRL, they are very different. Heck, a Bowie knife is different than an Arkansas Toothpick is different than a Chiv is different than a throwing knife. 3.0 ignored the difference to the point of (IHMO) hurting verisimilitude. Pretending that a dagger is just a miniature greatsword completely ignores the special function of having a dagger in the first place, and means that, by logical extention, having dagger proficiency would allow you to have greatsword proficiency, since they're they same thing at a different size. 3.5 re-established that each different weapon is a different thing.

But at the same time, such races are likely to come up with their own weapons and tactics, based on their size. The odds of Small critters using reach weapons is slim at best, if it's possible at all. I doubt they'd follow the human model (oh, for the days of the hoophack...)

Why wouldn't a small creature develop a reach weapon? It doesn't take a military genious to think that putting a 10-ft. pole between you and the enemy is a good thing, nor does it take a particular size to think that...

I don't think the issue is the damage; it's the added level of complexity (however minute)
to endorse the fact that such races would make the exact same weapons, only smaller. Or that those using such weapons inappropriately should be penalized for it. Or, worse yet, that in a system of abstarcts the designers pick this detail to codify.

The added minute complexity is awkwardly worded, but it results in a game in which it makes sense for someone to know to use a dagger, but not a greatsword, because the two are distinct weapons, not merely different sized.

 

[Storyteller01]

The 3.5 rules address the shortspear and the longspear as *seperate* weapons. A longspear isn't just a big shortspear, and a shortspear isn't just a small longspear. They are different weapons -- one built for striking things farther away, one built for stabbing and throwing. I'm sure anyone who has any training in weapon manufacture or use can tell you that weapons designed for different features have different qualities. Shortspears are weighted, longspears have braces, shortspears might have some crude fletching, longspears have reinforced hafts to prevent breakage. Different goals, different kinds of weapons.

Argueing such differences would be the same as arguing that freshwater fishing rods and Deepsea fishing rods are completely different and indistinct. Even if their designed for differeing specific goals (differing reels, weights, etc), their overall operation is the same. If you understand one, learn the other rather quickly. Maybe not in miniutes, but not so long as it would require extensive focus (feat expenditure).

And let's not forget, history has countless examples of footsoldiers using broken longspears as shortspears.

 

[Storyteller01]

Why wouldn't a small creature develop a reach weapon? It doesn't take a military genious to think that putting a 10-ft. pole between you and the enemy is a good thing, nor does it take a particular size to think that...

Other than the physics of a 2 to 3 foot critter with an average Str of 8 trying to leverage a 10' pole? even at full extension, their armspan doesn't come close to what's needed. A 6 foot human can barely do so as it is. As a team, maybe, but that negates the reach effect (someones in range...).

But I digress...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Argueing such differences would be the same as arguing that freshwater fishing rods and Deepsea fishing rods are completely different and indistinct. Even if their designed for differeing specific goals (differing reels, weights, etc), their overall operation is the same. If you understand one, learn the other rather quickly. Maybe not in miniutes, but not so long as it would require extensive focus (feat expenditure).

And let's not forget, history has countless examples of footsoldiers using broken longspears as shortspears.

But by that logic, weapons could be devided into two categories: poking and sweeping, one that is jabbed and another that is swung. A short sword is the same as a battleaxe is the same as a warhammer, they're all swung hard to put the hard end into the bad guys. Heck, why not make broken beer bottles equal to daggers? Their overall operation is the same, if you can use one, you can learn the other quickly....

By adding different types of weapons, we add complexity to the game to try and capture verisimilitude. It's not essential, but in that light, it's not essential to have Wizards, Sorcerers, and Bards either, since they all cast arcane magic, they should all be one class, because learning how to do one helps you learn how to do another....

Essential? No. Better? I certainly think so, because I value a game that reflects some fantastic reality rather than is just mechanics for storytelling...

 

[Storyteller01]

But by that logic, weapons could be devided into two categories: poking and sweeping, one that is jabbed and another that is swung. A short sword is the same as a battleaxe is the same as a warhammer, they're all swung hard to put the hard end into the bad guys. Heck, why not make broken beer bottles equal to daggers? Their overall operation is the same, if you can use one, you can learn the other quickly....

Now your getting it! Weapons operate on two principles; the point and the plane (although a better description is 'they strike precisely to put the hard end through the bad guy). All weapons operate by manipulating the weight/energy through two points (yes, they do exist in your one hand). From there you apply edged,point, or blunt force trauma. Mechanically, using the hammer IS the same as using the axe. the proficiency isn't in wielding a longsword, it's placing the slashing damage where it's most effective.

Given these factors, why is a halfling fighter trained in these principles going to have a hard time appling them to a slightly different weapon (or any trained fighter, for that matter)?

Thing is, gaining this insight takes years, which is why only fighters can wield all simple and martial weapons. They didn't spend the same amount of time with each weapon. They learned the larger weapons first, then applied those tactics to the smaller blades. Later weapons took less time to master. Heck, most fighters probably have never seen most of the weapons in the PHB, yet they can use them.


And yes, you can apply dagger technique to a broken bottle.