Simple Question on Huge Daggers and Tiny Longswords

[FrankTrollman]

This may be true, but the -exact same- problem existed in 3.0. In 3.0, a longsword was "medium" but it was not a medium sized object. To be medium-sized, it would have to be as big as a human. Simlarly, a greatsword was "large" but not large. At least now the size descriptors actually have some bearing to object size even if the size is the size of the user instead of the object. In 3.0, the weapon sizes were a completely distinct type of sizing.

Not exactly.

In 3e a "Medium Weapon" was a "Small Object". It could be used one handed by any medium creature, two-handed by any small creature, a light weapon by any large or larger creature, and could not be used by a tiny or smaller creature.

In 3.5 a "Medium One Handed" weapon is still a "small object", but while it can be used one handed by a medium creature - it is used two handed at a penalty by a small creature, and as a light weapon with a penalty by a large creature. It can't be used at all by a tiny or huge creature.

So the only difference in fundamental game mechanics is that there are now three different designations a small object which is a stick with a point at the end can have, and creatures which are three sizes larger than it is cannot use it.

So is this small sized stick with a point at the end a Large Light Weapon, a Medium One Handed Weapon, or a Small Two-Handed Weapon? It's important now, but it doesn't make any sense. The weight and size of the weapon have not changed, the damage has not changed, but some people suffer penalties from using it for no reason. And better still, a Cloud Giant can't use it at all for some reason.

Good Idea: Integrating the weapon sizing rules into the Druid and Rogue equipment list.

Dumb Idea: Implementing penalties and minimum weapon size rules into the wepaon rules.

Since the Good Idea is one of presentation, and the bad idea is one of actual game mechanics - there is literally nothing good in the change once you actually know the rules.

-Frank

 

[Aaron2]

So the only difference in fundamental game mechanics is that there are now three different designations a small object which is a stick with a point at the end can have, and creatures which are three sizes larger than it is cannot use it.

You see it as the same weapon with three different names, I see it as three different weapons that happen to do the same damage.

A halfling's greatsword is not the same as a human's longsword which is not the same as an ogre's dagger; the ratio of blade length to width and thickness are all different, the weapon's balance is different, the length and thickness of the grips are all different. The only constant is their damage and that is a result of granularity.

Dumb Idea: Implementing penalties and minimum weapon size rules into the wepaon rules.

Again, I see the penalty for using incorrectly sized weapons as a good thing, not a bad thing.

A huge giant can't use a weapon made for a hafling because he can't fit his hand on the grip. It would be like a human using a dagger with a 1" grip. Its just not happening.


Aaron (3.5 apologist)

 

[Hypersmurf]

You see it as the same weapon with three different names, I see it as three different weapons that happen to do the same damage.

He's not necessarily talking about a Spear designed for use by a Small creature.

He's talking about a pointy stick.

"Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet."

So, this jagged wedge of iron, with a rag wrapped around one end for a grip, is a reasonable match for an improvised Medium Dagger. It's also a reasonable match for an improvised Small Shortsword.

A human can use a Medium Dagger. He can't use a Small Shortsword - it's too small. But the improvised weapon is a reasonable match for both items.

So if he finds a real Small Shortsword, can he use it as an improvised Medium Dagger, at a -4 penalty?

-Hyp.

 

[FrankTrollman]

A halfling's greatsword is not the same as a human's longsword which is not the same as an ogre's dagger; the ratio of blade length to width and thickness are all different, the weapon's balance is different, the length and thickness of the grips are all different. The only constant is their damage and that is a result of granularity.

I never said a damn thing about Greatswords - I was talking about spears. The ideal ratio of balance to weight to length is entirely based upon length.

The concept that you could somehow make a spear of equal length and weight "for" a larger or smaller creature and have it be somehow "different" enough to provide significant penalties to other creatures is simply absurd.

Now I don't know what an Elve's shortsword would feel like to a Halfling - but according to Frodo it seems to work pretty well.

Any system which requires additional mechanics to make things less realistic and less balanced is a horrible idea.

-Frank

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Here's what is better:
1) Races of any size can use any weapon. No weird proficiency problems (such as a small rogue have effective longsword proficiency while medium-sized rogues did not)
2) There is now a penalty for using weapons of the wrong size. No more using a large dagger (2d6 damage) with Simple Weapon Prof.
3) No need to worry about different weapon sizes when making a new weapon.
4) The little guys actually get their own magic items now.

Here's what is worse:
1) Races need to use weapons of their own size. The Frodo shortsword problem (of course, whose to say he wasn't taking -2 to hit).
2) Races need their own specialized magic items. Makes randomly generated treasure less useful.
3) Small reach weapons still have reach. A small longspear is just as long as a regular longspear just lighter (and with fewer hit points). To me this is a problem with reach needing to be on 5' boundries. Logically, a human should have more reach than a halfling normaly anyway. (You can make a battemat with 2.5' squares, and solve both problems if they bother you)

You missed a good point.

Weapon damage types are no longer inconsistant. A halfling longsword is now slashing, while a human shortsword is now piercing.

I like the new rules a lot for one reason: 99% of the time it's easier. When I'm making a huge minotaur BBEG, I don't have to think about what kind of weapon I want him to use. He has a huge battle-axe. I don't have to worry about converting anything. And I can give him some huge hang-axes for back-up weapons without trying to figure out what size they would be.

And making the class proficiencies make sense is enough of a bonus for me to have accepted the change.

I don't understand those who don't like the change. It makes things easier. Who cares if it didn't make it more realistic?

--Away From Home Spikey

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Any system which requires additional mechanics to make things less realistic and less balanced is a horrible idea.

You are ignoring that it is more realistic in most cases and that it doesn't imbalance anything.

90% of the weapons are more realistic. Uh-oh, the spear isn't realistic, therefore the whole system is less realistic than the old one.

--Sarcastic Spikey

 

[SpikeyFreak]

He's not necessarily talking about a Spear designed for use by a Small creature.

He's talking about a pointy stick.

"Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet."

So, this jagged wedge of iron, with a rag wrapped around one end for a grip, is a reasonable match for an improvised Medium Dagger. It's also a reasonable match for an improvised Small Shortsword.

A human can use a Medium Dagger. He can't use a Small Shortsword - it's too small. But the improvised weapon is a reasonable match for both items.

So if he finds a real Small Shortsword, can he use it as an improvised Medium Dagger, at a -4 penalty?

-Hyp.

Are you serious? The DM can rule that it's good enough as a dagger for a human but can't rule that it's good enough for a halfling shortsword? That makes no sense.

--Flurry of Posts Spikey

 

[Hypersmurf]

Weapon damage types are no longer inconsistant. A halfling longsword is now slashing, while a human shortsword is now piercing.

They always were. Rules existed in 3E for changing the size of a weapon. Look at any giant in the 3E MM. "Huge greatsword". "Gargantuan morningstar".

A Small longsword (sized for a halfling) was a slashing weapon; a Small shortsword (the default in the PHB, a light weapon for a human) was a piercing weapon.

When I'm making a huge minotaur BBEG, I don't have to think about what kind of weapon I want him to use. He has a huge battle-axe. I don't have to worry about converting anything. And I can give him some huge hand-axes for back-up weapons without trying to figure out what size they would be.

But you do have to convert. You need to reference the table to find out what damage a Medium battleaxe does, and then you need to reference another table to find out what 1d8 becomes when you change from Medium to Huge.

... just like in 3E...

As for "Huge handaxes" in 3E - handaxes were Small. Humans are Medium. Huge is two sizes larger than Medium, so a minotaur's handaxe is two sizes larger than Small.

How is that more complicated?

-Hyp.

 

[FrankTrollman]

I don't understand those who don't like the change. It makes things easier.

You could just make the sized-up battleaxe before. There's no change in how easy it is.

Unless people use mis-sized weapons, in which case penalties start showing up that weren't there before and often don't make intuitive sense. Then it's less easy.

Who cares if it didn't make it more realistic?

Since they introduced four different gradations of penalties for the explicit purpose of making things more realistic - I would think the "realism" of the changes would be the primary point on which we judge them.

So it failed to make things easier and failed to make things more realistic. What's to like?

-Frank

 

[Hypersmurf]

Are you serious? The DM can rule that it's good enough as a dagger for a human but can't rule that it's good enough for a halfling shortsword? That makes no sense.

Not what I'm saying at all.

The DM can rule that this one item is equally useable as both a human dagger and a halfling shortsword.

But, by the rules, a human can't use a halfling shortsword. Even though the chunk of iron - that he could use - could act as an improvised halfling shortsword.

-Hyp.