Small Weapons?

[TheEvil]

As for the picture of Conan, I agree that a Huge dagger cannot be wielded by a human. This is why I have the house rule that a character cannot wield a weapon created for a creature two size catagories larger than yourself. My point is that weapons that are so similar as to have IDENTICAL stats (including size) should not produce penalties because one is named something different from the other.

It seems then that you DO use weapon size restriction and think they are realistic. Would it be fair to say that you think WOTC made the restrictions too tight?

 

[HeavyG]

My love of the new rules for weapon sizes comes from one fact. The smalls can now use reach weapons. Before they were completely unable to do so, and it makes no sense to me whatsoever that the small races wouldn't create such superalative defensive weapons. Nor could they use any double weapons, not even the lowly quarterstaff.

And why did they only have shortbows? Would they not create their own sized version of a longbow? And if their longbow is our shortbow, where's their shortbow?

It clears up a lot of holes in the game's logic for me anyway.

It's why I love the new weapon size rules, personally.

They're not even that complicated. If they had written 3.0 that way in the first place, I bet nobody would be complaining.

 

[Ketjak]

As for the picture of Conan, I agree that a Huge dagger cannot be wielded by a human. This is why I have the house rule that a character cannot wield a weapon created for a creature two size catagories larger than yourself. My point is that weapons that are so similar as to have IDENTICAL stats (including size) should not produce penalties because one is named something different from the other.

So you acknowledge that 3.0 rules as written do not work. In fact, you had to house rule them to make sense.

Now, are you intentionally ignoring the fact that the 3.5 weapons are not identical in stats? (A dagger is a piercing or slashing weapon that can be thrown without impovised weapon penalties; a short sword is a piercing weapon that cannot be thrown without improvised weapon penalties; a long sword is a slashing weapon that cannot be thrown without improvised weapon penalties.) Go ahead, check a Player's Handbook or the SRD if you don't believe us.

That's mechanical/rules. If you create a scaled (up or down) version of a weapon, the proportions remain the same... and thus they yield different performance characteristics. Thus, an ogre's dagger is not the same as a human's short sword and neither is the same as a halfling's long sword... even assuming they were mechanically the same, which they are not.

Are you ignoring that, too? I'm just curious, because you ignore every post that contradicts you with fact (rules or reality) and use no rules to justify your position.

- Ketjak

 

[Sheng Long Gradilla]

As for using weapons that are too wide, loosen your grip! Such pressure is not needed, and that kind of pressure will tire you out after several hours, even with a normal weapon.

You need to put a lot of pressure when the handle is too thick, otherwise it will accidentally fall off from your hand.

All that is needed is sufficient energy (number one rule for using a katana: Don't grip with the right hand. It is there for guidance and control. Use only enough force to maintain that path. You should barely feel the contact, even if the weapon is deflected [you use your whole body to absoeb this impact] The force of impact comes from hips thought the palms of your hands [reinforced by both the ulna and radius in the forearms]). Even with an axe or club (been trained with the use of ASP's and batons) such grip strength is not needed.

I know how to use the katana. That weapon was developed with perfection as a goal. The handle is perfectly sized so you don't have to grip with your hand and can draw it in a single fluid motion at the same time you do a cut. The katana has never had a standard handle size, a special handle would be made for the owner, so the weapon would be perfect.

Also, if you speak with those who have decades of experience with weapons training, they will tell you one thing: all weapons of a particular type operate in the same fashion. To prove this, an Iaido school will give a student approaching 5th Don a truely crappy blade. Loose handle, SMALL handle for a two handed strike. The point: if you know the fundamentals, such differences should not matter. You should be able to make the cut regardless.

No matter if you are a true master and know all the fundamentals and everything there is to know about a weapon, if it's defective, inappropriately sized or anything, you won't be as effective with it than you would be with one properly designed.

In fact, that's the reason masterwork weapons give a +1 to attack.

 

[Storyteller01]

It seems then that you DO use weapon size restriction and think they are realistic. Would it be fair to say that you think WOTC made the restrictions too tight?

More like overcomplicating the issue.

 

[Storyteller01]

You need to put a lot of pressure when the handle is too thick, otherwise it will accidentally fall off from your hand.

I know how to use the katana. That weapon was developed with perfection as a goal. The handle is perfectly sized so you don't have to grip with your hand and can draw it in a single fluid motion at the same time you do a cut. The katana has never had a standard handle size, a special handle would be made for the owner, so the weapon would be perfect.

No matter if you are a true master and know all the fundamentals and everything there is to know about a weapon, if it's defective, inappropriately sized or anything, you won't be as effective with it than you would be with one properly designed.

In fact, that's the reason masterwork weapons give a +1 to attack.

As for the first, not nessecarily. If this were the case, you could not slide in between positions or switch grips. Figer manipulation is a later lesson, and it shows that such pressure is not needed.

For the second, agreed, the katana was created with perfection in mind, but it was not a perfect weapon. Should you break your sword, another would have to be used, or you used the katana at a shorter range. Broken katanas and other weapons were a common sight when in battle field combat, especially against armor.

For number 3; are you sure about that? The whole point of combat training is to be effective in any situation. Also remember that a number of weapons were originally created as tools, especially in Asian regions. They were not created for combat, but required minimal modification to improve performance.

As for claiming 3.0 rules didn't work, I did no such thing. I made a sinle house rule to keep min/maxer's from attempting to use giant sized weapons. When common sense is applied, 3.0 rules work fine.


Let me give another anecdotal example. We had an 11 year old come into Iaido. Katanas (longsword) were too large for him to draw and use effectively. The instructors solution: give him a wakizashi (shortsword). He used it as a two handed weapon, learning katana techniques, and learnig them well. There was no change in skill level when because, as he grew older, he had to get used to a larger weapon. He applied the same principles equally.

You can argue that said 11 year old is not the size of a halfling, but the point is that he used a short weapon in the same manner as is larger equivalent. There are also other exmaples of adults using European shortswords to teach longsword techniques to young children. They didn't use specially made weapons, mainly because they could not afford to waste the steel. There is a reason why the weapons are named 'long' and 'short' swords.

Now if you accept this example as true (you may or may not), why can't other smaller creatures do the same?

 

[TheEvil]

More like overcomplicating the issue.

How so? Are you talking about the need to convert weapon dice when using a weapon that isn't medium or small? Is it the inconvenience of the PCs not being able to necessarily use all the treasure the come across? These were the main reasons I didn't like the 3.5 weapon sizing system when it first came out, but I have never thought it was particularly complicated.

 

[Storyteller01]

So you acknowledge that 3.0 rules as written do not work. In fact, you had to house rule them to make sense.

Now, are you intentionally ignoring the fact that the 3.5 weapons are not identical in stats? (A dagger is a piercing or slashing weapon that can be thrown without impovised weapon penalties; a short sword is a piercing weapon that cannot be thrown without improvised weapon penalties; a long sword is a slashing weapon that cannot be thrown without improvised weapon penalties.) Go ahead, check a Player's Handbook or the SRD if you don't believe us.

Are you ignoring that, too? I'm just curious, because you ignore every post that contradicts you with fact (rules or reality) and use no rules to justify your position.

- Ketjak

Not intentionally, no. WHat I'm saying is that all the stats are unnessecary. A longsword can do both slashing and piecing damage. This is why it was used in combat so effectively:versatility. Why it it only a slashing weapon in D&D? Katanas are the same. They are a slashing weapon, but users are trained to make thrusts (piercing) attacks. To say that a dagger is slashing and piercing, but a shortsword is only piercing is the use of a game mechanic. realistically, a shortsword can do both types of damage, and most daggers cannot be thrown unless you were trained to do so (not everyone is or was).

Not to insult others, but all I've seen is mechanics for answers, and one individual whose weapons training has differed from my own. In my studies, my instructors goal was to show the inherent physics fundamental to all weapons.His intention was to show that using any weapon that does the same damage is used in the same manner, with conciderations to mass, speed, and distance. I have yet to see someone counter my own facts without using game mechanics (since the change was to promote realistic combat).

My point: Why all the arguements saying'this mechanic operates this way or that". It has gotten to the point that a dagger and a small shortsword (yes, one can be thrown and is slashing/piercing and the other is not, but if they were built they would look and function identically) require a -2 differential when they are functionally the same. IF you don't believe me, ask a knifemaker. Ask him to make a small shortsword. It will look exactly like a dagger.

Also remember why the Chinese had twelve weapons styles. After training, the student realized that all weapons functioned in a proscribed manner. By learning the twelve weapons, he learned them all.

 

[Storyteller01]

How so? Are you talking about the need to convert weapon dice when using a weapon that isn't medium or small? Is it the inconvenience of the PCs not being able to necessarily use all the treasure the come across? These were the main reasons I didn't like the 3.5 weapon sizing system when it first came out, but I have never thought it was particularly complicated.

There is that too, but my situation is; why add math at all? It's like synergy bonuses: If I use this weapon or gain these skills, I gain or lose this bonus. It adds more for those who prefer extreme definition or classification, but does not make the game 'more realistic'.

 

[TheEvil]

There is that too, but my situation is; why add math at all? It's like synergy bonuses: If I use this weapon or gain these skills, I gain or lose this bonus. It adds more for those who prefer extreme definition or classification, but does not make the game 'more realistic'.

I can certainly understand that point of view, even if I don't agree with the whole of it.
One area that I think we will both agree on is that centaurs and driders now use large sized weapons, despite the fact the the humanoid torso is not described at being particularly larger then that of a normal human/drow elf. Why this bit of idiocy when forward, I will never understand.