No small weapons - I'm okay with this

[lukelightning]

It's kind of weird because it means that a halfling rogue does just as much damage as a human one.

If you get stabbed 4" deep with a blade, it doesn't really matter if the blade is a dagger or a longsword.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm a fan of the 3.5 weapon system because I thought it was intuitive and it was done out of game anyway, so it never actually impacted play. I liked gnomes wielding greataxes, and now that I've tasted it, it isn't going away IMC.

I'm curious about the Small property, however.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

From how I see it you could probably still use the 3.x system and still get the same mechanical results (except for proficiencies) that you would get with 4ed, its just that you now have an entirely seperate set of weapons that arent actually an entirely diffirent set of weapons because they can be used by larger creatures just like if they were using for instance a short sword instead of a (M) longsword.

EDIT: Actually that doesnt work out since in 4ed a small creature using a dagger probably does the same amount of dammage as a (M) creature. But seriously, in 3.5 it was a diffirence between a 2, and 2.5 average damage.

 

[AuraSeer]

If they have something like Kamikaze Midget's idea, though, I'll be happy. The "this can be used by a small person" tag seems to be about the clumsiest way I can think of to handle it.

That's not what the tag means, though. Small people can use most of the same weapons as Medium people.

The only weapons with a difference are ones with the Versatile or Two-Handed keywords, because in most cases they indicate a particularly large weapon. The Small keyword just modifies those other keywords, stopping them from hampering halflings.

For instance, what 3.5 calls a greatsword would be Two-Handed. A human can use it in 2 hands, but a halfling can't use it at all. A shortbow is Two-Handed and Small, so both humans and halflings can use it.

A bastard sword would be Versatile. A human can use it in 1 hand normally or 2 hands for extra damage, while a halfling needs 2 hands and doesn't get the extra damage. But a weapon that were Versatile and Small could be used the same way by humans or halflings, and either one would get the extra damage from two-handing it.

Edited to add:
And if a longsword is One-Handed (and nothing else), a human and a halfling can both use it just fine. It looks like even the damage is the same, assuming equal ability scores.

 

[jaelis]

If you get stabbed 4" deep with a blade, it doesn't really matter if the blade is a dagger or a longsword.

Guess I don't follow. Daggers and longswords do different damages.

My point is that a halfling rogue is proficient with as good a 1H blade as a halfling fighter can use. While the human rogue does not get as good a weapon as a human fighter. (We know the longsword is versatile from the ranger pregen.)

No big deal, just bugs me a bit.

Also, I guess the staff will get the <small> keyword, otherwise halfling wizards would be SOL.

 

[Mort_Q]

It's kind of weird because it means that a halfling rogue does just as much damage as a human one.

Why is that weird?

They get the same hitpoints, assuming similar CON, despite the size difference.

They can lift the same weight, assuming similar STR, despite the size difference.

The question is, do small creatures have the same kind of AC bonus as in 3.Xe? Or is that all assumed into the racial feats now?

 

[jaelis]

Why is that weird?

Because a halfling fighter doesn't do as much damage as a human fighter.

I kind of picture rogues as being trained with "light" weapons. But a halfling rogue is trained with the heaviest weapon a halfling can use in one hand.

 

[Storminator]

I wish there were essentially no rules difference at all between small and medium PCs. I don't recall that causing the sky to fall in 1e, and it's a useless complexity.

So I'm good with only one set of weapons.

PS

 

[WhatGravitas]

They can lift the same weight, assuming similar STR, despite the size difference.

That's not true. SRD on encumbrance:

Bigger and Smaller Creatures

The figures on Table: Carrying Capacity are for Medium bipedal creatures. A larger bipedal creature can carry more weight depending on its size category, as follows: Large ×2, Huge ×4, Gargantuan ×8, Colossal ×16. A smaller creature can carry less weight depending on its size category, as follows: Small ×¾, Tiny ×½, Diminutive ×¼, Fine ×1/8.

But I like the new rules. They remind me of 3.0... and I started with that, kept using it in AU/AE - and never had problems. And it harkens back to Tolkien - the Hobbits are using - IIRC - Numenorean daggers as short swords.

Cheers, LT.

 

[ImperialParadox]

I don't mind this change, while the 3.5 rules were perhaps more realistic they added another dimension to the bookkeeping and planning of treausure.

With the 3.5 rules if you had a player playing a PC of a small race you had to conciously remind yourself to throw in small opponents with small magic weapons every once in a while, or you would put the PC at a disadvantage against the normal sized party members who would generally find medium-sized gear in a greater quantity than the small PC would find small-sized gear.

Converserly, you don't end up with a medium-sized party with a bag full of small-sized magic weapons that are practically useless to the party, and that require the finding of a buyer who specifically wants small weapons.

Doing things the 4.0 way generally means there is a greater change of all characters finding useful weapons regardless of their size, and I think this is a good thing.

(I do realize their is still a size-specific issue with two handed weapons and the 'small' weapon tag, but does not seem to be a big of a problem as the old way).