CombatWombat51
First Post
I'm not griping, but honestly confused... why'd they do all that weapon size stuff in 3.5? How is it better than what existed before?
Simple Question on Huge Daggers and Tiny Longswords
- Thread starter CombatWombat51
- Start date
the Jester
Legend
Basically, the idea that a giant's dagger is the same as a human's longsword is ridiculous. I mean, how big is the pommel on that thing? It's gonna take both hands just to get around it!
The idea, I think, is to add verisimilitude to the game thusly.
The idea, I think, is to add verisimilitude to the game thusly.
drnuncheon
Explorer
To illustrate how goofy the 3.0 way of doing things was, here is a picture of Conan weilding a size Medium dagger (which he can do without penalty in the 3.0 rules!):
J
J
dcollins
Explorer
I think the game mechanic behind the 3.0 weapon sizing was far more elegant than the current one. Partly the reason they changed it in 3.5 was to smoothly accomodate Tiny or Large or Huge PCs without needing DM adjudication for what additional weapon choices are available. Even that seems like a poor reason for the change.
This is very much one of those 2nd-Edition-style "poorly thought out quasi-realism updates that bog down the game".
This is very much one of those 2nd-Edition-style "poorly thought out quasi-realism updates that bog down the game".
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
dcollins said:
Why do you think it bogs down the game? I hardly noticed the change... it's more terminology than anything else, it seems. Sure, the Small longsword deals slashing instead of the shortsword's piercing and such changes.
What makes it run more slowly? Weapon selection is pretty much the same, but Small creatures have a standard way of getting Large-only weapons (the glaive, for example).
Do you not like the additional column in the weapons table, the idea of not using giant sidearms as primary weapons when taken by PCs, the idea of weapons of nonstandard sizes, or something else?
FrankTrollman
First Post
It is a half-assed attempt to fit a bit of realism in. However, since it then goes back and assumes that all creatures of the same size have the same hand size - it's also completely off base. A Boggle, a Human, and Centaur are all supposed to be able to wear the same non-magical gloves - so any possible claims about "realism" are completely out the window as soon as we attempt to wrap our minds around the 3.5 weapon sizes rules.
Secondly, the actual proper ratio of length to thickness in a spear is fixed based on the type of materials used (there is a certain minimum thickness to keep a spear usable, and any additional weight allowance would be spent on having a longer spear). So any masterwork spear should be defined by length only - the "intended user" is not important because there is no pommel. So don't try to wrap your mind around the "difference" between a medium longspear and a large shortspear - it will only serve to break your mind.
Thirdly, the 3.5 rules introduce a minimum weapon size for creatures to be able to use. A character cannot use a weapon that is an object more than 3 sizes smaller than themselves. So a Human cannot fight with a dimminutive object, for example. That means that humans cannot stab people with shivs, kitchen knives, scalpels, holdout knives, or knitting needles. It also means that humans cannot wear brass knuckles as they are "too small" to be used as a weapon.
The 3.5 rules for weapon sizes were partly a good idea - in that reminding people that any weapon can be sized up or down as far as you want is a good idea. However, the implimention of penalties for using sized weaponry and minimm weapon size rules make no sense at all and were a terrible idea.
The part that was a good idea is actually in the 3rd edition rules - so there is actually nothing good here at all once you incoporate Sword and Fist or the A&EG into your game.
-Frank
Secondly, the actual proper ratio of length to thickness in a spear is fixed based on the type of materials used (there is a certain minimum thickness to keep a spear usable, and any additional weight allowance would be spent on having a longer spear). So any masterwork spear should be defined by length only - the "intended user" is not important because there is no pommel. So don't try to wrap your mind around the "difference" between a medium longspear and a large shortspear - it will only serve to break your mind.
Thirdly, the 3.5 rules introduce a minimum weapon size for creatures to be able to use. A character cannot use a weapon that is an object more than 3 sizes smaller than themselves. So a Human cannot fight with a dimminutive object, for example. That means that humans cannot stab people with shivs, kitchen knives, scalpels, holdout knives, or knitting needles. It also means that humans cannot wear brass knuckles as they are "too small" to be used as a weapon.
The 3.5 rules for weapon sizes were partly a good idea - in that reminding people that any weapon can be sized up or down as far as you want is a good idea. However, the implimention of penalties for using sized weaponry and minimm weapon size rules make no sense at all and were a terrible idea.
The part that was a good idea is actually in the 3rd edition rules - so there is actually nothing good here at all once you incoporate Sword and Fist or the A&EG into your game.
-Frank
sithramir
First Post
FrankTrollman said:
I just would like to point out that nowhere is it assumed they are the same size hand. The magic of the glove allows it to perfectly fit its wearer. Haven't you ever seen Lord of the Rings? You should if not. Yes the magical "reason" sounds stupid in a way but thats the point of magic.
You're large shortspear verses a small longspear is also completely off. You are missing the point of how to use the weapons. Its about balance with the weapon as you discussed. I'm not going to get into it because i'm also no expect but having fenced and thrown javelin i have some experience. Perhaps you should ask a coah for one of these sports.
FrankTrollman
First Post
What, if anything, does this have to do with the non-magical gloves described in my post? Boggles have human-sized hands in flavor text. Centaurs have human sized hands in falvor text as well. Humans actually are humans, so presumably their hands are human sized.
Throwing spears are weighted differently from non-throwing spears (although any spear can be thrown or stabbed with) - which is why Javelins are a Ranged Weapon and short spears are a Melee Weapon. Beyond that it's an absolute question of total weight and allowed weight (the longer it is the more absolute length its weight is distributed along, and thus the more torque it has to endure and thus the thicker it has to be relative to its length in order to stay together). It's an absolute concern, not a personal concern - the weapon's girth is a factor of having to fight its own weight - not a question of hand size.
-Frank
dcollins
Explorer
CRGreathouse said:
It's additional text and mechanics that don't improve anything. It breaks back-compatibility for no good reason. It collapses the fantasy flavor so that every race has all the same weapon choices as every other race. Weapons in stat blocks and found treasure need to have a size modifier added to them. A party can't cleanly hand off a weapon from human to halfling because they'll have a penalty assessed no matter what. You can't simulate Frodo in Lord of the Rings using an elven dagger proficiently as a sword. The designers didn't think to handle the issue of bows or other ranged weapons either way.
Your example of the glaive is a good case. Personally, I'm happy to accept that by its nature a glaive requires a certain mass/heft to be effective, and is only available to Medium-sized characters. 3.5 collapses that flavor distinction, and it also opens the door to small-sized reach weapons which seem counterintuitive and against theme.
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
dcollins said:
Similar Threads
