Advice wanted: 3.5 weapon sizing

[francisca]

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!

And as the DM, if I had a player pull that - claiming that this 36" "dagger" he picked up from a cloud giant was "legal" for him to use- he'd be laughed from the table. Quoting the rules would get him bounced pretty hard, most likely.

Any DM fool enough to let a wizard get away with using a dagger which equates to longsword has probably got bigger problems with his game that the weapon sizing rules, and deserves any unbalancing wreckage he incurs by blindly following the RAW.

 

[Storyteller01]

What is a giant's scimitar? A fachion to a human?

Or a greta scimitar...

How about a halfling's sickle in human hands?

Gardening tool/simple weapon. Small sickles of that nature do exist for humans, mostly for small gardens (before clippers anyway).

How about a heavy crossbow in halfling hands?

A two-man crewed weapon or, with the liberal use of sand bags, a sniper placement. Works especially well if the heavy cross bow is the kind with the winch...

A human shortsword is a piercing weapon, yet in the hands of a halfling its a piercing longsword?

And that's bad? Longswords were originally made for piercing attacks.

What is a human scythe in an ogre's grip?

A large sickle, functionally.


Thing is, a weapon's name won't define its properties. It's make up and construction will. Heck, rapiers weren't even called rapiers until late in their use. Most seasoned (combat) fighters hated them; they weren't as effective as a dagger or shortsword. Too specialized.

But I'm getting WAY off track. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[MerricB]

And as the DM, if I had a player pull that - claiming that this 36" "dagger" he picked up from a cloud giant was "legal" for him to use- he'd be laughed from the table. Quoting the rules would get him bounced pretty hard, most likely.

Any DM fool enough to let a wizard get away with using a dagger which equates to longsword has probably got bigger problems with his game that the weapon sizing rules, and deserves any unbalancing wreckage he incurs by blindly following the RAW.

However, that's what the 3e rules already allow by saying a halfling has proficiency in shortsword - a _human-sized_ shortsword. Are we then to expect that the halfling doesn't have proficiency in a halfling-sized shortsword?

The 3e rules say that monsters have proficiency in weapons appropriately sized for them (see the huge giants and the Titan), and that they have proficiency in weapons not appropriately sized for them (see Halfling).

By the time of Savage Species, the Wizards designers realised this gaping hole in the weapon size rules (which otherwise were rather good), and created the 3.5e rules.

Incidentally, a large shortsword = a large greatsword in 3e rules (or very similar, at least), leading to some very confusing nomenclature.

Cheers!

 

[francisca]

However, that's what the 3e rules already allow by saying a halfling has proficiency in shortsword - a _human-sized_ shortsword. Are we then to expect that the halfling doesn't have proficiency in a halfling-sized shortsword?

The 3e rules say that monsters have proficiency in weapons appropriately sized for them (see the huge giants and the Titan), and that they have proficiency in weapons not appropriately sized for them (see Halfling).

By the time of Savage Species, the Wizards designers realised this gaping hole in the weapon size rules (which otherwise were rather good), and created the 3.5e rules.

Incidentally, a large shortsword = a large greatsword in 3e rules (or very similar, at least), leading to some very confusing nomenclature.

Cheers!

Whatever. Again, All of this can be quickly dealt with by application of common sense.

A halfling sized short sword is a dagger. Period. I see no reason to accomadate the point of view of small creatures when the game is played by medium sized humans.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I do not claim that either the 3.0 or 3.5 rules are superior as rules.

However I hated that a human longsword was a halfling's greatsword. The grip and balance is all wrong. So it was a realism rather than rules issue. I use the 3.5 rules in regards to most things.

The Auld Grump

 

[I'm A Banana]

Whatever. Again, All of this can be quickly dealt with by application of common sense.

Right, but IMHO, the JOB of the designer is to apply common sense to the rules. The DM has enough to deal with without having to re-write the rules, too.

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.

Okay, why have different weapons? Why have different weapon proficiencies? If you're advocating simplification and abstraction to that degree, why bother with different statistics for the weapons?

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)?

In reality, a person who knows fencing is going ot have a hard time applying the same principles to a spear or throwing a punch or getting in a knife-fight. The weapon rules emulate this reality by using different weapon proficiencies: unarmed strike, rapier, and dagger are all seperate weapons. Real life gets even more grainy than this, in that someone who knows a fencing rapier will need more training before they can know how to use a real one. Someone who knows how to punch a man won't nessecarily know how to use a glaive, even though it's all the same kind of motion.

The game rules, which want to simplify reality, but value the diverse differenses between punching a man and putting a spear in him, reflect this with different weapons. I value this too, so I think the rules make the game better. If you don't value this, why accept even the 3.0 weapon rules?

Anyway, a trained halfling fighter doesn't have any problem applying these to a similar weapon. But a dagger and a longsword are no more similar weapons than a fist and a rapier. In other words, it would be an oversimiplification that I wouldn't enjoy in the game.

Maybe you would, and that's fine, but certainly that means that the 3.0 rules were off for you, too, and that the 3.5 rules moved the game farther from that abstraction to a more concrete representation of the differences between weapons. That may be a problem for you, but certainly you can understand that people like the aspect of the game that shows the difference between an axe and a sword just like they like the apsect of the game that shows the difference between a druid and a cleric, or a sorcerer and a wizard.

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.

Well, that's one interpretation, but it definately doesn't have to be the only.

I'd argue that no, they did spend the same about of time with each weapon. While wizards learned to break the laws of time and space, fighters could certainly educate themselves on the subtle differences between a greatsword and a longsword. This is why they have a higher attack bonus than wizards -- they know the weapons and the difference between them to such an extent that they can use the weapons better to hit enemies better.

The weapons in the PHB are all available in any town with a high enough GP limit, and even the smallest towns have enough GP to accomodate the vast majority of the weapons. So unless you're using DM fiat, no, fighters have seen the vast majority of the weapons in the PHB, and have trained with them, learning the ins and outs of these weapons as they learn the ins and outs of heavy armors and shield use.

The Fighter class, like any other class, represents a lifetime of skill in their first level. The weapons they learn are not just swung around in two different ways, but are tools used for their appropriate tasks. You don't use a longsword for the same thing you use a hammer for. The abstraction that you recommend would equalize the two, and that's a level of abstraction that would remove some of the strategic fun of the game, and some of the verismilitude inherent in the rules.

 

[francisca]

Right, but IMHO, the JOB of the designer is to apply common sense to the rules. The DM has enough to deal with without having to re-write the rules, too.

I'll offer up: The DM has enough to worry about, without keeping track of whether it's a S/M/L dagger.

But let's try this out for size. Say we're witnessing a mostly 3.5 game with 3.0 weapon sizes, or a fully 3.0 game:

Wizard: Hah! Now that we've killed the giant, I'm going to pickup his "dagger" (player makes quotation marks with his fingers) and use it! Hahaha! It's a "dagger", but king-sized, so it does a d8, hahahahahah!!! I rule!
DM: Nice try. It's too big to be a dagger, to you. Therefore, you aren't proficient with it, so you'll be at -4 to hit.

So, where did the DM re-write the rules?

The 3.0 sizing rules didn't need to be re-written. Just common sense applied when some munchkin tried to pull a fast one.

I've seen rumblings that most of the rule changes in 3.5 are rooted in DMs pulling their hair out over "by the letter of the RAW" interpatations in RPGA games. I wonder if the weapon size changes are an example?

 

[babomb]

Wow, it seems the issue is devisive as ever.

I've been thinking on this issue a bit more, and I've realized that the most literal interpretation of 3.0 does break down at sizes other than medium/small. For example, as I saw it, the dagger, shortsword, longsword, and greatsword were the same weapon at different sizes. The "a wizard could use a giant's dagger" argument made no sense to me, because it wasn't a giant's dagger; it was a greatsword, that the giant used like a dagger. Some books said, e.g., "giant's longsword", but I thought that was just those books being inconsistant.

But today, I realized that it doesn't make sense from the opposite direction. That is, under my interpretation, a storm giant wizard couldn't use the greatsword like a dagger, because he's only proficient in dagger (not that it ever came up in my games before). Of course, a little common sense clears up all of these issues (e.g., a giant wizard would be proficient in greatsword instead). I suppose if one attempted to codify this common sense, it'd look something like the 3.5 rules. So I guess I feel better about the 3.5 rules, even though I've got enough common sense not to need them. It just feels too "rules-heavy" to me, I guess. There's a neat cinematic system I've seen on these boards where all of the weapons do the same damage that I'd be tempted to try out if my group weren't mostly newbies.

I've decided to give the 3.5 system a chance, but use the weapon equivalencies, which makes it mostly like 3.0 anyway (only slightly more consistant). Theoretically, though, a halfling could buy a medium longsword for 15 GP and save 35 GP over buying a small greatsword. Ah well, the by-the-book economy never made sense anyway.

Thanks for the help. Now, tell me what you think about the pokemounts...

 

[Storyteller01]

Right, but IMHO, the JOB of the designer is to apply common sense to the rules. The DM has enough to deal with without having to re-write the rules, too.

YMMV

Okay, why have different weapons? Why have different weapon proficiencies? If you're advocating simplification and abstraction to that degree, why bother with different statistics for the weapons?

Different weights and striking surfaces do different things to a body, even with similar use. F=ma.

In reality, a person who knows fencing is going ot have a hard time applying the same principles to a spear or throwing a punch or getting in a knife-fight. The weapon rules emulate this reality by using different weapon proficiencies: unarmed strike, rapier, and dagger are all seperate weapons. Real life gets even more grainy than this, in that someone who knows a fencing rapier will need more training before they can know how to use a real one. Someone who knows how to punch a man won't nessecarily know how to use a glaive, even though it's all the same kind of motion.

1) the fencing parry/thrust can be applied to unarmed combat, as can the thrust of a rapier to the thrust attack of a spear/quaterstaff. Speak with folks who have experience in both. The rapiers weight/shrarpness means you need less body weight to effect a target (soemething close to 8 grams) so they can alter the thrust to get out of the way. Can't do that too well with a two handed spear, but the application/energy transfer [hips/hands/target] is the same.

2) Fencing is a sport relying on the fact that everyone is following the rules. Real time combat wouldn't use the weapon outside of a duel, and fencers aren't expected to learn more than three weapons (foil, epey, and saber). The main difference between saber and the other two is slicing mechanics versus thrusting. The difference between the foil and the epey is the rules you have to follow while tournament dueling. Mechnics of the two are the same.

Anyway, a trained halfling fighter doesn't have any problem applying these to a similar weapon. But a dagger and a longsword are no more similar weapons than a fist and a rapier. In other words, it would be an oversimiplification that I wouldn't enjoy in the game.

Again, talk to folks who are trained in both, or all types. The main difference in their use is timing and distance. For example, the mechanics of the punch and the rapier are the same, but the rapier user alters their technique to accomadate the opponents weapon. They're getting out of the way.

Well, that's one interpretation, but it definately doesn't have to be the only.

I'd argue that no, they did spend the same about of time with each weapon. While wizards learned to break the laws of time and space, fighters could certainly educate themselves on the subtle differences between a greatsword and a longsword. This is why they have a higher attack bonus than wizards -- they know the weapons and the difference between them to such an extent that they can use the weapons better to hit enemies better.

This doesn't require the use of every weapon, and comparing weapons use to spell use is not a good analogy. It's the same as comparing military training to physics majors time in school. Basic weapons and protocol is taught over the course of weeks, with the new recruit expected to perfect his trade through experience and drills. The physics major can spend years in study before he can even be considered for internship (apprenticeship?).

The weapons in the PHB are all available in any town with a high enough GP limit, and even the smallest towns have enough GP to accomodate the vast majority of the weapons. So unless you're using DM fiat, no, fighters have seen the vast majority of the weapons in the PHB, and have trained with them, learning the ins and outs of these weapons as they learn the ins and outs of heavy armors and shield use.

How many fighters in a european based setting have seen a kukri, a south east asian based weapon? How many fighters spent time learning to fight with a sickle?

The Fighter class, like any other class, represents a lifetime of skill in their first level.

That lifetime being being around the late teens, or the races equivalent. Unless it's a war torn land, most are lucky to have seen combat at all.


YMMV

 

[I'm A Banana]

The DM has enough to worry about, without keeping track of whether it's a S/M/L dagger.

Only this is easy to keep track of: what size is the critter? Assume weapons are sized appropriate.

So, where did the DM re-write the rules?

It sounds like the DM and the player are playing games of semantics. The player says it's a dagger because the giant used it like a dagger despite the fact that it's six feet long, the DM says it's a greatsword because it's big despite the fact that the giant used it like a dagger. 3.5 resolves it, and STILL imposes that -4 on the PC because it may be a dagger, but it's a lot bigger than any dagger the mage has used before.

This has made my games noticably faster when we're trying to figure out how to divvy up the loot of big enemies, and faster logistics = more fun in those four hours, which makes the rules WELL worthwhile.

I've decided to give the 3.5 system a chance, but use the weapon equivalencies, which makes it mostly like 3.0 anyway (only slightly more consistant). Theoretically, though, a halfling could buy a medium longsword for 15 GP and save 35 GP over buying a small greatsword. Ah well, the by-the-book economy never made sense anyway.

This is probably the happiest medium. The 20 GP isn't a huge issue after the first fiveish levels anyway, so they probably won't notice it.

It just feels too "rules-heavy" to me, I guess. There's a neat cinematic system I've seen on these boards where all of the weapons do the same damage that I'd be tempted to try out if my group weren't mostly newbies.

It is rules-heavy. The idea that Storyteller proposed above is kind of the opposite extreme, and both have their supporters.

Another example of an abstract system is just giving each class a damage dice regardless of the weapon. Fighters deal 1d8 damage with a 19-20 crit. Barbarians deal 1d12 damage with a x3 crit. Clerics deal 1d6 damage with a x2 crit. Etc. And then make the special features of weapons just that: the kinds of damage, or bonus to certain kinds of checks, etc. It's what I use in my FFd20 system (whis is more about cinematics than tactics than normal D&D)