Simple Question on Huge Daggers and Tiny Longswords

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Sorry, this is kind of wrong. It's not the size of the object that's important, it's the size of the intended wielder. And honestly, that's my main beef with the new weapon size rules...too much similar terminology creates a lot of unnessecary confusion.

Your human could wield a dimmunutive weapon, that is, an object that is dimmunitive size that is created for a medium-sized character to wield. That's no problem. Chuck all the pebbles you want.

What a human COULDN'T use are weapons sized for dimmunitive creatures, that is, an object of variable size that is created for a dimmunitive-sized chracter to wield. So you couldn't use a pixie's chiv, for instance, because what would be a chiv to a pixie is like a fingernail to a human. You couldn't use a pixie's longspear, either, because it's like a toothpick.

Take, for instance, the dagger. By the book, it's a medium weapon (tiny object size). If you made it into a large weapon, upping it's damage to 1d6, you'd have a Small object, but a Large weapon (that is, a weapon intended to be wielded by Large characters, that is actually Small size). This would be, except for the throwing range, exactly the same as a short sword. That is, a Small character can still wield it as a one-handed weapon, and a Medium character can wield it as a light weapon, and a large character can wield it as a light weapon.

Where this gets fuzzy, for me, is in the proficiencies. That Large dagger....it's like a short sword with a throwing range. But it's still a dagger. Could my human wizard use it? And, in which case, why would my wizard ever use a normal dagger? This large one is exactly the same, but deals more damage. And this doesn't take an extra feat to use? Sure, it causes a penalty, but it's only a -2...suck it up, and run with it!

My wizard is now going to walk around with a Gargantuan-sized dagger. He'll chuck it the same distance, it has a 19-20 crit range, and it deals 2d6 points of damage. Get it keen, get True Strike (to compensate for the -6 penalty), maybe weapon focus, and we have a wizard...typically a weak character martially, shelling out 2d6 damage on a regular basis, at range, by chuking around daggers. BIG daggers. Daggers that, as objects, are as big as greatswords. But which my wizard can use just as easily as the dagger in his pocket.

There's something decidedly uneasy about a wizard who can use a weapon that is as good as a greatsword without having to shell out a feat for it. Now, admittedly, if they just picked up a regular greatsword, they'd fare a bit better (just a -4 penalty), but still.....those he can't throw, and aren't blessed with such a great crit range...why wield a greatsword?

It's not a balance problem...it's not even really a realism problem. It's just an...awkwardness problem. When a weapon is several different sizes and uses the same feat to function, things get a bit hairy.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Chuck all the pebbles you want.

Particularly since the Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed designations only apply to melee weapons.

A Medium shuriken is not a Light Medium weapon, or a One-Handed Medium weapon, or a Two-Handed Medium weapon. It's just a Medium weapon. Since it's not a melee weapon, those three terms do not apply.

So, a Medium creature using a Small shuriken takes a -2 penalty... but since it wasn't Light, One-Handed, or Two-Handed for a Small creature, its designation isn't "changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration" for a Medium character, and he can wield it. Just like he can, by the rules, use a Large, Huge, Gargantuan, or Collosal shuriken at -2, -4, -6, and -8 penalties respectively.

Likewise, he can use a Collosal heavy crossbow at a -8 penalty, or in one hand with a -12 penalty. He might not be able to use one in each hand, however... since using a heavy crossbow in each hand incurs penalties as if using two one-handed weapons, it could be argued that using a Collosal heavy crossbow in each hand incurs penalties as if using two larger-than-two-handed weapons... and those penalties are undefined, since one can't wield two larger-than-two-handed weapons. With undefined penalties, it would be reasonable for a DM to say "can't do it".

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

For example, take the 3.0 Large dagger, which worked like a greatsword: are Medium-size fighters proficient with it? Some argued that they weren't, some argued that they were. What use is it to give rogues shortsword proficiency and not longsword proficiency if they could just use Medium-size shortswords? Ditto wizards and Small/Medium daggers.

I agree that in 3.0 proficiency was not intended to apply to resized weapons, which makes these rhetorical problems go away. At the same time, there wasn't any option in the core rules for procurement of Large Daggers or Medium Shortswords -- if the DM wanted to introduce such items, it would be his responsibility to add those new items to the proficiency lists if that was his choice.

 

[Wormwood]

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.

You are not undertsanding the Weapon Size Category rule:

"A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder.
In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder..."

Emphasis mine, of course. "In general" does not mean: 'Always'.​

The 'Light' category encompasses everything from spiked gauntlets to saps to light maces to Legolas's stabby arrows. ​

Presumably, it would also include such weapons as steak knives, sharpened spoons and brass knuckles of the same Weapon Size Category as their weilder.​

If you wandered into a Halfling kitchen and tried to stab me with a [weapon size category: Small] steak knife, you're looking at a -2 size penalty. Just as if you climbed up the beanstalk and slipped on a pair of [weapon size category: Large] Brass Knuckles.​

​

edit: Kamikaze Midget posts much faster than I do.​

​

​

 

[Hypersmurf]

The 'Light' category encompasses everything from spiked gauntlets to saps to light maces to Legolas's stabby arrows.

Presumably, it would also include such weapons as steak knives, sharpened spoons and brass knuckles of the same Weapon Size Category as their weilder.

If you wandered into a Halfling kitchen and tried to stab me with a [weapon size category: Small] steak knife, you're looking at a -2 size penalty. Just as if you climbed up the beanstalk and slipped on a pair of [weapon size category: Large] Brass Knuckles.

I agree with your first two paragraphs, but not your third.

The Small steak knife is a Light weapon for a Small creature. If you're a Medium creature, you are one size category larger than the creatures the weapon was designed for, so you reduce its designation (Light) by one step (less-than-Light). The designation has changed to something other than Light, One-Handed, or Two-Handed, and thus you can't use it.

If someone designed a weapon - identical in physical form to a Halfling Steak Knife - for Medium characters, it would be a Light weapon for a Medium creature, and a One-Handed inappropriately-sized weapon for a Small character. (Even though it is smaller than Light Medium weapons generally are, the qualification lets us get away with it.) The identical-in-physical-form-but-designed-for-halflings weapon is a Light weapon for halflings, and unuseable by humans.

By the rules. It's the size category the weapon was designed for that counts.

-Hyp.

 

[FrankTrollman]

By the rules. It's the size category the weapon was designed for that counts.

Which is dumb - and more importantly completely breaks down into incomprehensibility when confronted with improvised weaponry.

-Frank

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which is dumb - and more importantly completely breaks down into incomprehensibility when confronted with improvised weaponry.

Yup.

I haven't yet figured out the people who consider 3.5 Weapon Sizing an improvement over 3E...

-Hyp.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It just allows for a lot of weird things. If they were going to tinker with the size, they should've tinkered more with the weapon lists with the new size rules in mind.

 

[coyote6]

It just allows for a lot of weird things. If they were going to tinker with the size, they should've tinkered more with the weapon lists with the new size rules in mind.

IMO, they should've playtested the tinkerings some more. They might've found some of these silly flaws.

My other favorite is the new lighting rules -- by the rules, in a room that's completely candle-lit (i.e., lit by a candle every 10 ft., and thus entirely under "shadowy illumination"), a creature with low-light vision (which is the ability to see better in poor lighting) can see no better than a person with normal vision. sigh.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

Yup.

I haven't yet figured out the people who consider 3.5 Weapon Sizing an improvement over 3E...

-Hyp.

My gnome druid was getting sick of sickles.

Hasn't this debate been brought up about 1000 times so far?