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

[psionotic]

I like the 3.5 weapon sizes, and while I'm generally in favor of K.I.S.S. design, I hope that they're retained.

One of the things that drove me crazy about 3.0 was naming weapons for increasingly larger creatures. What do we call the equivalent of a longsword for a gargantuan creature? "Gargantuan Longsword" (the 3.5 answer) makes... a lot of sense, and saves us from having to make up a new name for it, then do conversions up and down when other creatures attempt to use it.

 

[GSHamster]

Edit: Oops, misunderstood the 3.5 rules a bit.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I like the rules. I think they make sense.
I just don't use them because in the end, they are just extra rules with no reward.

Exactly how I feel, except I felt compelled to try them out, didn't like them, and haven't bothered to go back through and tell everyone that their small longswords are actually short swords, etc.

Although it may not be entirely realistic (you know, because gnomes and half-ogres are ripped from today's headlines), I will say the 3.0 rules were a lot friendlier to groups with multiple size characters represented.

If I drop a size small weapon into my Midwood campaign, there's only two characters that get to use it. And given that kobolds are one of the main antagonists in the setting, I either get to jump through hoops to introduce other size items despite that, or load those two up with the lion's share of the magic and masterwork weapons. (Note that neither is a front-line fighter: One is a rogue/cleric and the other is a druid.)

If, instead, a small longsword was actually a shortsword, the dwarves or humans in the group could also pick up those items and use them if they wanted to.

This is an example, IMO, where realism needs to take a back seat to what works best at the game table.

 

[danbuter1]

I don't use them because they screw over halflings and gnomes, and we had a halfling PC.

 

[JoeGKushner]

So Frodo should have a penalty wielding Sting?

Are you assuming halflings are still size S in the game? Dwarves are M no?

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't use them because they screw over halflings and gnomes, and we had a halfling PC.

I really liked that Small races had greatswords and greataxes added.

 

[BadMojo]

Count me in as "cool with the 3.5E weapon rules".

It would be very odd to have a kobold-sized short sword function as one made for a hill giant.

I have a character right now who's using a large dagger. I imagine it as sort of a large bowie knife/short sword you can throw thing. So, I'm at least one player using the weapon size rules.

 

[Ranger REG]

Weapon equivalency rules in the DM's Guide. Sting=a human short sword but a halfling longsword, so no penalty.

It's a dagger crafted for Middle-Earth humans (mainly Numenoreans, who are taller than the average humans). To a halfling (half the height of a Numenoreans), it's a short sword.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It would be very odd to have a kobold-sized short sword function as one made for a hill giant.

Yes, it would, since that's not how it worked in 3.0. A kobold sized short sword would be a dagger for a medium-sized character and be unusable for anyone bigger than that.

 

[MarkB]

I've never seen the problem with 3.5e weapon size rules. I don't think they're any more complex for a player coming into the game than the 3.0 rules - it's generally just (some of) those who are used to the 3.0 rules that seem to have trouble making the transition.

Frankly, if the outsize weapon you find in a treasure hoard is decent enough to be worth using, a -2 penalty to attacks isn't going to set you back that badly - and if it's not worth it for you, sell the thing and use the money to upgrade your own weapon, or else buy the "sizing" ability from the MIC.