Small Weapons?

[Ogrork the Mighty]

This is another example of complaining about a change without just thinking through the logic first.

Right back at ya bub.

I'm not talking about the differences between 3.0 and 3.5. I'm talking about earlier editions to 3.5. In earlier editions, goblins didn't wield longswords or battle axes. They wielded hand axes and shortswords. And that's what has changed. Now they wield bigger weapons that have been sized smaller.

And my point still stands. Goblins dealt more damage with shortswords, clubs, etc., in old editions than they do now. Sure you can say they use bigger weapons sized for them, but that's just a rules work-around to get the system to work.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Sorry, but that's a joke to adventurers who used to fear facing goblins.

The joke's on them, anyway. Only a total wuss would fear a goblin, be it 3.0 or 3.5.

3.0 "OH MY GOD, A GOBLIN!!!!! THOSE GUYS WIELD WEAPONS AS BIG AS A SHORT SWORD!!!" "Dude, you're a freaking sevenfooter barbarian, and your greatsword deals 2d6 - plus as much bonus damage due to your high strength that is as much as the average weapon damage of your weapon - and twice as much as their avarage damage overall"

3.5 "AHAHA! LOOK, A GOBLIN! ADORABLE! HE HAS A TINY LITTLE "GREATSWORD"! THEY'RE KILLING ME!" "Dude, they are, they deal 1d8 with it, plus 1.5x Strength, and your laughter has attracted the whole tribe. See, you're in the negatives and - ouch - your rage stopped when you fell unconscious, which robs you of 12 more hp. You're soooo dead".



Sorry, but trolls bring out the naughty word in me.

 

[Storyteller01]

[can the halfling throw the dagger he uses like a shortsword?]

Quasqueton

How do humans throw two handed axes in loggers competitions?

Also remember, actual weapon sizes are not set in stone. Short swords averaged an 18" length (1 foot blade, 4"-6" grip).

Daggers blades can range from 4"-8" in length. Longer blades were made for use in duels.

These examples aren't set in stone, but you can use this to explain how a goblin does more damage. Why is a goblin with a 5" blade only doing 1d3, when a human with a dagger of the same length can do 1d4 damage.

The human body (or orc) is only about 6 to 8 inches wide (front to back) at the chest (more for a woman or obese man). A blade only needs to travel 3 or 4 inches to do irrepairable damage to a vital organ. Less if you go through the abvdominal wall (1/4" at best).

 

[TheEvil]

I'm not talking about the differences between 3.0 and 3.5. I'm talking about earlier editions to 3.5. In earlier editions, goblins didn't wield longswords or battle axes. They wielded hand axes and shortswords. And that's what has changed. Now they wield bigger weapons that have been sized smaller.

And my point still stands. Goblins dealt more damage with shortswords, clubs, etc., in old editions than they do now. Sure you can say they use bigger weapons sized for them, but that's just a rules work-around to get the system to work.

What do you mean it is a rules work-around? Goblins in older editions used shortsword like longswords and hand axes like battle axes too. All 3.5 did was codify that they were indeed using these weapons, properly sized for them. Other then a few snafus with reprints (such as small character using a small version of the shortsword rather then a small longsword) it all works out just the same as it did before. Only damage type need change.

To be honest, I don't really understand what you are complaining about. Rather then using human sized handaxes and shortswords for d6, they now use goblin sized longswords and battle axes.

 

[TheEvil]

How do humans throw two handed axes in loggers competitions?

Also remember, actual weapon sizes are not set in stone. Short swords averaged an 18" length (1 foot blade, 4"-6" grip).

Daggers blades can range from 4"-8" in length. Longer blades were made for use in duels.

I took a quick look at the SRD and didn't find any lengths listed for shortswords or daggers, so I am curious where you are getting your lengths from.
The AD&D shortsword was 18" to 24", the dagger was 15" (d4), the knife was 12" (d3). Remember that the D&D dagger is not a tool, it is a weapon. A 4" knife is a tool, maybe a holdout weapon if nothing else is available (I wouldn't give it more then d2).

These examples aren't set in stone, but you can use this to explain how a goblin does more damage. Why is a goblin with a 5" blade only doing 1d3, when a human with a dagger of the same length can do 1d4 damage.

The human body (or orc) is only about 6 to 8 inches wide (front to back) at the chest (more for a woman or obese man). A blade only needs to travel 3 or 4 inches to do irrepairable damage to a vital organ. Less if you go through the abvdominal wall (1/4" at best).

Heh, well now you get into a 'problem' with the whole d20 combat system. Most of the weapons listed in the PHB are lethal weapons that can easily kill with one well placed blow in real life. HPs kind of throw all that out the window. At best all you can really say is that is what crits are for.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Right back at ya bub.

I'm not talking about the differences between 3.0 and 3.5. I'm talking about earlier editions to 3.5. In earlier editions, goblins didn't wield longswords or battle axes. They wielded hand axes and shortswords. And that's what has changed. Now they wield bigger weapons that have been sized smaller.

But to goblins, the hand axes and shortswords were approximately longswords and battleaxes.

And my point still stands. Goblins dealt more damage with shortswords, clubs, etc., in old editions than they do now. Sure you can say they use bigger weapons sized for them, but that's just a rules work-around to get the system to work.

Yes, they did deal more damage using the old rules assuming you don't change the weapon to equal what it's always represented. Goblin wielding hand axe... goblin is holding weapon like a human wields a battle axe... goblin wielding goblin sized battle axe... mnnn... seems the same to me.

And of course you can always have the goblins wielding the wrong sized weapons with the penalty.

 

[Storyteller01]

I took a quick look at the SRD and didn't find any lengths listed for shortswords or daggers, so I am curious where you are getting your lengths from.

Museum pieces and books on combat tactics.

My point was that these weapons vary in length, but still do roughly the same amount of damage. Added length was more for gaining reach then doing more damage (although the added mass definitely helped).

As for tools, read up on the Darwin Awards. Two men tried to rob a butcher plant at knife point. One got out alive.

4" to 6" blades were also used in assassinations. This 'tool' didn't have to penatrate armor or other defenses
if used properly. Like I mentioned earlier, the added length had been for reach...

Which got me thinking; this thread has a point. If the weapons only vary but a matter of inches, then why do they do a lesser amount of damage?

You'd only give a 4" blad e a d2!? Maybe a 2" blade, but standard folders are roughly 4" (good for taking hand and forearm shots). These work knives have been used to good effect in bar fights.

 

[dcollins]

3.5:
Giant is 12 feet tall.
Greatsword is 12 feet long (3d6 damage)....

3.0:
Giant is 12 feet tall.
Greatsword [wielded as longsword] is 6 feet long (2d6 damage)....
Dagger is 1 foot long (can't use)...

You're making a few minor mistakes.
(1) In the 3.5 system you really need to specify the weapons as Large-sized Greatsword, etc. (a weapon isn't really determined without a size specifier).
(2) In 3.0 you'd never say "greatsword [wielded as longsword]". You'd say "greatsword [wielded in one hand]".
(3) In 3.0, a giant can certainly use a dagger. There's nothing to prevent them from using a Tiny weapon or anything smaller.

Personally, I prefer 3.0. Say the PCs run into a goblin:
Option #1: He's got a short sword!
Option #2: He's got a Small-sized long sword!

Which is simpler? #1.

 

[Quasqueton]

An 8' tall bugbear has a space of 5' and a reach of 5', the same as a 4' tall dwarf. An 8' tall ogre has a space of 10' and a reach of 10', the same as a 16' tall giant.

It's a game mechanic, not a scientific calculation.

A Medium shortsword, whether 15" long or 28" long, does 1d6 damage. A Small shortsword, whether 12" long or 18" long, does 1d4 damage. It's not a matter of length, weight, sharpness, or material; it is a matter of type---a game mechanic.

As for goblins doing more damage with a shortsword in previous editions, that is more a matter of terminology. A human looked at the goblin's sword and saw a "shortsword", even though to the goblin it was a "longsword". To an ogre, it is a "dagger". Who wrote the description in the old MMs? A human, not a goblin, or an ogre.

And to be technical, note that by the book, goblins still do 1d6 damage. Same as it ever was. So when you say they do only 1d4 damage now, you are changing the stock stats.

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

You're making a few minor mistakes.
(1) In the 3.5 system you really need to specify the weapons as Large-sized Greatsword, etc. (a weapon isn't really determined without a size specifier).
(2) In 3.0 you'd never say "greatsword [wielded as longsword]". You'd say "greatsword [wielded in one hand]".
(3) In 3.0, a giant can certainly use a dagger. There's nothing to prevent them from using a Tiny weapon or anything smaller.

(1) Actually, in 3.5, the size specifier is superfluous unless the weapon is just lying on the floor with no wielder reference.

(2) And the difference is? Anal semantics?

(3) I may be misremembering, but I thought there was a rule disallowing using a weapon more than two size catagories different. <shrug>

Personally, I prefer 3.0. Say the PCs run into a goblin:
Option #1: He's got a short sword!
Option #2: He's got a Small-sized long sword!

Which is simpler? #1.

Option #3: He's got a longsword. (He's a goblin. Unless the Players don't know that goblins are small, adding the size specifier is unnecessary.)

Or, easiest...
Option #4: He's got a sword.

Tell me, what size is a greatsword wielded by a Colossal creature, in 3.0? Who can wield a Large dagger (as a dagger), in 3.0?

I'm not saying the 3.0 weapon size system was bad, I'm just saying 3.5 did make it simpler and more straight forward.

Quasqueton