D&D 4E Weapon Sizes must die in 4E

[JiffyPopTart]

I see some argue that the weapon sizing rules make the small races virtually(or even less-than) useless in combat ... when was the last time you saw an adult or even a pit-bull(the closest RL approximation of a Kobold) get beaten up by a 10-year-old? Small races have no business in melee combat. Ever. This is something even the abstractness of DnD cannot ... nay; SHOULD not, smooth over.

If it was chimp vs. human and both were equally intelligent i'd put my money on the chimp every time.

DS

 

[Ranger REG]

Something was invented that was similar - the smallsword, which actually fills in a gap for medium size characters too.

IF a smallsword the equivalent of a halfling rapier, what's a storm giant version?

 

[Mighty Halfling]

A small press game I was looking at (Fantasia) does weapon damages a little bit differently.
They do not by type of weapon, but by class.
Essentially, it's not the type or size of weapon that's important, it's how you use it.
So, the way it works out is:
Wizards get 1d4 for any weapon they use, regardless of it being a broadsword or a dagger. (Of course their spells probably use a better die)
Clerics get 1d6.
Rogues get 1d8.
Fighters get 1d10.
Monsters, depending on their type, could follow a similar arc.
Then you could get feats that help you push your damage die up a level. Other feats could give you bonuses on the type of weapon you pick or specializations. Your strength modifier adds into that too.
Anyway, such a system could work and makes weapon-size concerns irrelevant.

 

[Storm Raven]

IF a smallsword the equivalent of a halfling rapier, what's a storm giant version?

Why does it matter? What storm giant would ever choose to use one?

 

[Ranger REG]

Why does it matter? What storm giant would ever choose to use one?

A flamboyant one? Why, is your imagination that limited?

 

[MarkB]

Why does it matter? What storm giant would ever choose to use one?

A storm giant rogue with Telling Blow. Except he doesn't use one, he uses two.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

A small press game I was looking at (Fantasia) does weapon damages a little bit differently.
They do not by type of weapon, but by class.
Essentially, it's not the type or size of weapon that's important, it's how you use it.
So, the way it works out is:
Wizards get 1d4 for any weapon they use, regardless of it being a broadsword or a dagger. (Of course their spells probably use a better die)
Clerics get 1d6.
Rogues get 1d8.
Fighters get 1d10.
Monsters, depending on their type, could follow a similar arc.
Then you could get feats that help you push your damage die up a level. Other feats could give you bonuses on the type of weapon you pick or specializations. Your strength modifier adds into that too.
Anyway, such a system could work and makes weapon-size concerns irrelevant.

This would be a lot better, IMO, although the folks still hoping for realism in D&D (including the authors of the 3.5 weapon size rules) almost certainly will find it too abstract.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

This would be a lot better, IMO, although the folks still hoping for realism in D&D (including the authors of the 3.5 weapon size rules) almost certainly will find it too abstract.

It also makes multiclassing wierd.

 

[Mighty Halfling]

It also makes multiclassing wierd.

Not really. It's just a benefit of multiclassing that you get to take the better die. But if the designers are trying to avoid single-class dips, then it might not work.
Still, you could just have it be that your weapon is based on the class you have the most levels in.


Plus, as an added benefit, you could have wizards that use battle axes ... and fighters that specialize in the use of daggers and still deal out awesome damage!

 

[MarkB]

Plus, as an added benefit, you could have wizards that use battle axes ... and fighters that specialize in the use of daggers and still deal out awesome damage!

This must be a new usage of the word 'benefit' that I was previously unaware of.