Reach weapons and big creatures.

[Kaleon Moonshae]

It uses relative weapon size, but it's essentially identical to the core 3E rules. In the 3E PHB, you'll find the same rule - a Large creature or larger with a reach weapon doubles its natural reach.

It doesn't even mention "of appropriate size" in the 3E PHB, so strictly, a Cloud Giant wielding a normal longspear as a light weapon threatens 20', 25', and 30', as written.

Savage Species suggested a variant rule whereby a given weapon modifies the wielder's reach by a certain amount, but you can't really claim "3.5 made up a horrible new rule for reach weapons", because it's the same rule that was in the 3E PHB.

-Hyp.

Actually this is one time you read me wrong hyp But thank you for the reply. What I said was I disliked the relative weapon size rules. It had nothing to do with reach. I specifically named halflings and gnomes. The rules I am talking about are those atrocious ones that state a halfling must wield a halfling weapon or he takes penalties. I am sorry if I have never seen this done in literature. Even in tolk the humans are able to wield sting as a dagger or the halflings wield it as a short sword, as in 3.0. I just find it a clunky rule that menas the dm has to spend extra as long on treasure figuring out if each item is size x or not. He also has to be sure to place enough small sized weapon wielding critters in his campaign so that the halfling doesn't get jipped on treasure.

"Oh another dagger, too bad pip over there would take a negative for using it, guess that means I'll get this one too. Don't worry pip, eventually we'll find an opponent your size, even though we are in predominantly human area."

Yes, the halfling can have things specially made, which takes time and money and is no where near as fun as finding loot. I just agree with our DM in saying it was a wasted effort, it's been tried in games before and it always punishes the smaller (and larger) characters.

Another point. In a mainly human country where halflings and gnomes are encountered rarely (which can be found in many adventures and settings) how many small town blacksmiths are going to know how to forge a halfling longsword? What are they going to do? They are going to make a short sword and then hand it to the halfling and say "here's your longsword sir." It is a nice bit of flavor they could have put as an optional rule in the dmg, but as a standard rule it harms to the players of small characters.

 

[Pax]

[...] but I do thank you for telling me where it is, will tell my dm and see if he wants to use that 3.5 varient.

Um, actually it's not a variant, it's the default rulein 3.5e ...

I don't know though, it sounds based on the whole relative weapon size thing which I still think is the worst rule I have ever seen.

It's actually easier, and more intuitive, than theprior system ended up being for me. Now, if you want your half-ogre to wield what is, for him,a two-handed sword, you don't have to get a "huge greatsword" (which sounds too big for a size Large wielder) ... you just get a large greatsword, up the damage accordingly, and you're done.

Halflings can be built around wielding a rapier, if you want a halfling swashbuckler ... it'll just be a small rapier.

If you want a storm giant wielding a rapier ... great, go for it: it's a huge rapier!

Let's make it even harder on the halflings and gnomes where treasure is concerned,

And how does that make it harder on them? Only the GM can do that; if he doesn't place small weapons, it's his fault. Not the rules' fault.

not to mention harder on the dm now that he has to roll the size of every single piece of weaponry we find and make sure that we fight at least one halfling or gnome npc of equal level so we can be sure that our halfling gets a fair share of the loot and doesn't get jipped.

What roll? There's no roll for weapon size - it's purely GM choice. If your GM wants to use dice rather than judicious placement, again, that's the GM's choice - not the dictate of the rules.

end rant: Now, I like a lot of the stuff in 3.5, don't get me wrong. I just feel that it is a pain to have relearn the entire system.

*grin* I started playing with the old red-box Basic set, and swiftly moved into First Edition AD&D. I got the 2E Player's Handbook the moment it came out; I got the Skills and Powers (etc) "v2.5" rules when THEY came out. I got Third Edition the moment it was released, and did the same with the revision.

So I've "re-learned" the rules no less than five times - which means I've learned the rules six times, if you include my initial foray into D&D.

I think 3.5 is a great game and is great for people who haven't played 3.0, but for some of us who played 3.0 since the beginning and have huge swathes of areas memorized we now have to second guess everything we think we know, lol. It kinda makes you feel like an idiot.

Been there, done that, managed to make a shockingly smooth transition from 3.0 to 3.5 for my epic arena game.

one other question then: Do larger weapons with reach effect that? Or is it always just double?

Always just double your natural reach. A longspear built for an ogre is as good for the ogre, in proportion to it's size and reach, as a longspear built for a human is when wielded by that human. And, what's more, it does commensurately more damage.

Trust me, that's a LOT simpler than the rules presented in the 3.0 book Savage Species (which had a whole SLEW of calculations for each of reach, damage, weight, cost, weapon hitpoints, etc, etc, etc). Now, your GM can simply turn to the entry for Ogres in the MM, and decide "yeah, ogres with longspears, that'll be cool this time" - quick-look-up the damage of a "Large Longspear" (meaning, "Longspear built for size-Large wielders") in the PHB, double the Ogre's reach from 10' to 20' ... and that's it, no more math or calculations, he can just start the dice rolling and the blood flowing without any further fuss over the ogres' weapon(s).

 

[Pax]

Another point. In a mainly human country where halflings and gnomes are encountered rarely (which can be found in many adventures and settings) how many small town blacksmiths are going to know how to forge a halfling longsword? What are they going to do? They are going to make a short sword and then hand it to the halfling and say "here's your longsword sir." It is a nice bit of flavor they could have put as an optional rule in the dmg, but as a standard rule it harms to the players of small characters.

Nope.

The smith is going to measure the Halfling's arm length, relative height, a rough estimate of weight - and make him an appropriately-sized longsword. Without ever having seen a halfling before in his life.

Seriously. You think the King's eight-year-old son doesn't have a full suit of honest-to-goodness (if lighter-weight than usual) Full Plate Armor, and his own perfectly-sized-for-him longsword? And trust me, stuff for a human eight-year-old is about the right size for a (maybe tallish) halfling.

Yep, that's right, thehalfling goes to the smith and buys what amounts to a medieval "kid's meal" in terms of weapon and armor. Probably pays more than normal, since it involves "finer work than I'm used to, m'Lord", and whatnot.

And ... really now, ifyou were a reasonably-wealthy D&D king, and your packof sons (rangingin age form, say, eight to thirteen) wanted armor ... in that sort of a dangerous world, why WOULDN'T you spring for, oh ... a +1 mithril shirt of heavy fortification for each of them? (great anti-assassin defense, that). For only 37,100gp, they're worth ten times their weight in platinum for the safety they provide your wee laddies - and the kids get to strut around in real armor, too!

Then, you head over to the weaponsmith and order swords made for each of them ... +1 merciful longswords[/b], even! You just make sure hte Merciful ability is "on", and don't tell the kids what the command word is. Poof, no more worrying about the two hotheads killing each other (just beating each other senseless). And heck, those'd make GREAT practise weapons for their lessons with the Master of Arms, too!

The oldest of your sons (and, in most D&D worlds, daughters as well), those say twelve and up, likely also have real, honest-to-Pelor lethal arms, kept under lock and key in the royal Armory, in the event of a war or the like. Depending on how grown those kids are, those weapons to might qualify as being "small weapons"; after all, a male Gnome averages three-foot-five; plentyof twelve and thirteen year old boys aren't more than an inch or two over four feet tall, which is only a half-dozen-ish inches taller than the Gnomes.

So - even in an exclusively-human, "never seen a gnome, dwarf, elf, halfling, or ANYthing but a human before" kingdom, there will be SOME weapons sized appropriately for Small characters.

Or for that matter, for someone who wants toplay a twelve-year-old human street-urchin type rogue. *shrug*

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

Nope.

The smith is going to measure the Halfling's arm length, relative height, a rough estimate of weight - and make him an appropriately-sized longsword. Without ever having seen a halfling before in his life.

Seriously. You think the King's eight-year-old son doesn't have a full suit of honest-to-goodness (if lighter-weight than usual) Full Plate Armor, and his own perfectly-sized-for-him longsword? And trust me, stuff for a human eight-year-old is about the right size for a (maybe tallish) halfling.

Yep, that's right, thehalfling goes to the smith and buys what amounts to a medieval "kid's meal" in terms of weapon and armor. Probably pays more than normal, since it involves "finer work than I'm used to, m'Lord", and whatnot.

And ... really now, ifyou were a reasonably-wealthy D&D king, and your packof sons (rangingin age form, say, eight to thirteen) wanted armor ... in that sort of a dangerous world, why WOULDN'T you spring for, oh ... a +1 mithril shirt of heavy fortification for each of them? (great anti-assassin defense, that). For only 37,100gp, they're worth ten times their weight in platinum for the safety they provide your wee laddies - and the kids get to strut around in real armor, too!

Then, you head over to the weaponsmith and order swords made for each of them ... +1 merciful longswords[/b], even! You just make sure hte Merciful ability is "on", and don't tell the kids what the command word is. Poof, no more worrying about the two hotheads killing each other (just beating each other senseless). And heck, those'd make GREAT practise weapons for their lessons with the Master of Arms, too!

The oldest of your sons (and, in most D&D worlds, daughters as well), those say twelve and up, likely also have real, honest-to-Pelor lethal arms, kept under lock and key in the royal Armory, in the event of a war or the like. Depending on how grown those kids are, those weapons to might qualify as being "small weapons"; after all, a male Gnome averages three-foot-five; plentyof twelve and thirteen year old boys aren't more than an inch or two over four feet tall, which is only a half-dozen-ish inches taller than the Gnomes.

So - even in an exclusively-human, "never seen a gnome, dwarf, elf, halfling, or ANYthing but a human before" kingdom, there will be SOME weapons sized appropriately for Small characters.

Or for that matter, for someone who wants toplay a twelve-year-old human street-urchin type rogue. *shrug*

ahhhh, not quite true however. A halfling is *not* a human. It is true that he has *roughly* the same proportions (although a gnome doesn't). I would also say that a smith who actually measures arm length and takes eveyrhting into consideration is making more than "typical" weapon, he is moving towards masterwork. If normal weapons took proportions of individuals into account then every single conscript soldier would be taking a negative penalty to wrong sized weapons. In that case, every single weapon you find in the treasure your party gains would not work for any character, sicne the person it was sized for is usually dead. Also, children were not given 'sized' versions fo swords historically. They were told to learn how to wield the weapon. Usually, children who were being raised by soldiers and the like got their father's sword to practice with. That sword would be sized for a full grown man, and even under your system would be sized specifically for the father. I don't bout you but I am nothing like my father in build. My hands are twice the size of his and my shoulders make him *look* like a halfling next to me.

Now, yes you are right, a rich lord would have a specially sized and crafted sword for his children... a *masterwork* sword. I have no problem in saying that masterwork weapons are sized for individuals and not just anyone... but that would drag the game down... which is the problem with this new system anyway. You say a local blacksmith in a small village, who traditionally has made maybe 10-12 swords is going to know how to tailor fit a blade to a gnome, whome he has never seen before and doesn't know how his muscles and frame work? Also look at real life swords at your local museum. They are most definitely *not* sized for an individual unless they were special requests (ie masterwork). Most of them were made by the dozens by not wonderfully talented smiths, and it shows. I think you overestimate the quality of a normal longsword in dnd. You go into a smith and buy a blade, if you want a special one you either buy a masterwork one (which is sized and balanced for you perosnally and costs a crapload more) or you tell him you want a small sword for your short friend and he will make what he *thinks* will work.

Where do you get the idea that children had livesteel sized for them? I have been to a lot of collections and am a history major and have never heard of such a thing except as an exception. Also, if you wnat to get into real world demographics, most 11 or 12 year olds were already considered men and were either squires or apprentices. The idea that most players have of a *young* pc being 18 is completely contemperary. Women were wed at 11 and men were comanders sometimes as early as 15.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Halfing blades..

Kaleon Moonshae, I see what your point is, and I agree. The way to fix it would be to tweak the game a bit and create a weapon called 'sword' and ditch all the other versions. Base the 'Sword' damage on its size. That way a dagger is mechanically a tiny sword. A Halfing Longsword is a Small Sword.. and is a Humans Dagger.

There could be templates for 'Sword' which change its values, for instance the Rapier template could provide +2 to hit, -2 to damage, improved crit and deals only piercing damage.

This way, in your world, anyone can pick up a bladed weapon and potentially use it. A Giant could pick up your Halfings Rapier and use it as a dagger. Etc..

Anyway, enough typing with not enough caffiene... later!

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

Kaleon Moonshae, I see what your point is, and I agree. The way to fix it would be to tweak the game a bit and create a weapon called 'sword' and ditch all the other versions. Base the 'Sword' damage on its size. That way a dagger is mechanically a tiny sword. A Halfing Longsword is a Small Sword.. and is a Humans Dagger.

There could be templates for 'Sword' which change its values, for instance the Rapier template could provide +2 to hit, -2 to damage, improved crit and deals only piercing damage.

This way, in your world, anyone can pick up a bladed weapon and potentially use it. A Giant could pick up your Halfings Rapier and use it as a dagger. Etc..

Anyway, enough typing with not enough caffiene... later!

Which is basically what 3.0 did. You had a halfling walk into a smithy and look for a weapon. His friends are looking at the fine longswords on the walls or whatever but what catches the halfling's eye is that dagger that his big friends are ignoring. He picks it up, waves it around a bit and is sold on it. It still does 1d4 but it works as a short sword for the halfling. What damage does a small shortsword do in 3.5? Isn't it around 1d4? The only thing different is that the halfling doesn't have to go have it specially made for him, it fits just right for his size and he walks out happily talking bout his new halfling short sword while his friend chuckle a little bit behind their hands cause he doesn't realize that is was really just a dagger.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Always just double your natural reach. A longspear built for an ogre is as good for the ogre, in proportion to it's size and reach, as a longspear built for a human is when wielded by that human. And, what's more, it does commensurately more damage.

I don't think that's what he meant.

Let's say your human uses Monkey Grip to wield the ogre's longspear.

What's his reach?

Let's say the Large cave troll takes the Medium longspear the ranger just stabbed him with, and uses it to stick the halfling who's prone in the corner.

What's his reach?

-Hyp.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

Um, actually it's not a variant, it's the default rulein 3.5e ...


It's actually easier, and more intuitive, than theprior system ended up being for me. Now, if you want your half-ogre to wield what is, for him,a two-handed sword, you don't have to get a "huge greatsword" (which sounds too big for a size Large wielder) ... you just get a large greatsword, up the damage accordingly, and you're done.

Halflings can be built around wielding a rapier, if you want a halfling swashbuckler ... it'll just be a small rapier.

If you want a storm giant wielding a rapier ... great, go for it: it's a huge rapier!


And how does that make it harder on them? Only the GM can do that; if he doesn't place small weapons, it's his fault. Not the rules' fault.


What roll? There's no roll for weapon size - it's purely GM choice. If your GM wants to use dice rather than judicious placement, again, that's the GM's choice - not the dictate of the rules.


*grin* I started playing with the old red-box Basic set, and swiftly moved into First Edition AD&D. I got the 2E Player's Handbook the moment it came out; I got the Skills and Powers (etc) "v2.5" rules when THEY came out. I got Third Edition the moment it was released, and did the same with the revision.

So I've "re-learned" the rules no less than five times - which means I've learned the rules six times, if you include my initial foray into D&D.


Been there, done that, managed to make a shockingly smooth transition from 3.0 to 3.5 for my epic arena game.


Always just double your natural reach. A longspear built for an ogre is as good for the ogre, in proportion to it's size and reach, as a longspear built for a human is when wielded by that human. And, what's more, it does commensurately more damage.

Trust me, that's a LOT simpler than the rules presented in the 3.0 book Savage Species (which had a whole SLEW of calculations for each of reach, damage, weight, cost, weapon hitpoints, etc, etc, etc). Now, your GM can simply turn to the entry for Ogres in the MM, and decide "yeah, ogres with longspears, that'll be cool this time" - quick-look-up the damage of a "Large Longspear" (meaning, "Longspear built for size-Large wielders") in the PHB, double the Ogre's reach from 10' to 20' ... and that's it, no more math or calculations, he can just start the dice rolling and the blood flowing without any further fuss over the ogres' weapon(s).

I'll take these one at a time:

1) yeah, i know it's the standard rule now, I thought I put quotes around it, was trying to be sarcastic.

2) It is true that in some ways it is easier, but now I have to add what size my weapon is to *every* weapon that isn't "standard" whereas before I knew, and it was *very* intuitive to me, that you just stepped down one step so shortsword was a longsword for a halfling. If I wanted a specific small weapon for a halfling (such as a rapier) then, and only then, did I worry about size and I would usually make a specific weapon for him and say that *that* unique weapon was sized differently. In effect, however, it just did one die smaller than a regular rapier and had the same crit range. It came natural to me.

3) I say the rules because for beginning gms, and I have seen this, this is just another step for them to remember. You and I are old hands, I am sure, but not eveyrone is. I hate to blame stuff on the gm when it is just inexperience, and even inexperiece that didn't even have to be a problem if not for some clunky rule set.

4) No, you are right here, there are no tables for differing siezed weapons. However, a lot of gms I know roll random treasure for piles you find in dungeons and to make that fair, they need to at least come up with a random way of determining what size weapons are. A gd can, you are right, just arbitrarily decide weapon size, but then he can also arbitrairily decide treasure (and yet there are random tables).

5) Yes, but let's be honest here, the differences in prior versions of dnd were often pretty obvious, at least to hear my friends speak (i started in ad&d 2nd ed so I don't know, I played other games before that) and the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 are sometimes *deceptively* sublte. We are always finding new rules that we didn't catch before (such as the darkness spell brought up a while back, the swim check that Hyp helped me with, etc). I say those make learning 3.5 harder than before. Is it possible? Yes it is, I will admit I don't put enough effort into it because my DM likes 3.0 a lot and I like OGL a lot (for me the new 3.5 stuff is almost completely pointless for my uses).

6) Yeah, Hyp had it right. I understand that you double reach, the question I had is what if that ogre is wielding a "huge" (under the new rules) glaive? Does he gain something for this extra length? What is it? Is it the typical doubling the double so it is 30'? or is it just 5 ' more, ie 25'? Does it matter at all, since under the new rules it looks like a large creature weilding a medium glaive still has "double" his reach since reach always doubles.

 

[Pax]

6) Yeah, Hyp had it right. I understand that you double reach, the question I had is what if that ogre is wielding a "huge" (under the new rules) glaive? Does he gain something for this extra length? What is it? Is it the typical doubling the double so it is 30'? or is it just 5 ' more, ie 25'? Does it matter at all, since under the new rules it looks like a large creature weilding a medium glaive still has "double" his reach since reach always doubles.

I would say, if you had a feat that made the weapon "an appropriate size" for you (i.e., monkey grip or even wield oversized weapon, it would count as an appropriate size for you, and owuld double your reach.

But you still won't be holding the weapon the same way as someone for whom it WAS properly sized - the balance of such a huge length of spear wouldn't allow it, in the case of wielding an oversized spear ... so you wouldn't gain any extra reach.

As for wielding undersized weapons, I wouldn't give extra reach either. Your hands and grip (and the lengthof your arms) would be so large in comparison to the weapon, that you wouldn't gain any extra benefit. So an Ogre wielding a Medium Longspear has the same reach as an Ogre wielding a Large Shortspear. *shrug*

 

[Hypersmurf]

2) It is true that in some ways it is easier, but now I have to add what size my weapon is to *every* weapon that isn't "standard" whereas before I knew, and it was *very* intuitive to me, that you just stepped down one step so shortsword was a longsword for a halfling.

Except that longswords deal slashing damage, and a halfling with a 3E shortsword dealt piercing damage.

A halfling with a 3.5 Small longsword deals slashing damage, just like a 'normal' longsword.

4) No, you are right here, there are no tables for differing siezed weapons. However, a lot of gms I know roll random treasure for piles you find in dungeons and to make that fair, they need to at least come up with a random way of determining what size weapons are. A gd can, you are right, just arbitrarily decide weapon size, but then he can also arbitrairily decide treasure (and yet there are random tables).

So because your friends are making up random tables that don't exist in the books, and those random tables cause problems, the books are wrong?

-Hyp.