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

[Tinker Gnome]

A PC IMC can use a weapon that is smaller what he would normally use(say a small battleaxe) in one hand as a light weapon and suffering no penalties. SMall characters can use a medium sized weapon in one hand if it seems reasonable. For instance, A Gnome could use a Medium sized Heavy Mace in one hand.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

You take a small race for your PC, you win some and you loose some. Swings and roundabouts really. I see no problem with the 3.5 weapon size rules at all.

Read the first half of your post. You do see the problem, you just don't care about it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I can't see why some players have problems understanding the rules, but that's why every table has its own house rules.

This thread is full of people who understand the 3.5 weapon sizing rules -- which doesn't seem to be as true of the people bashing the 3.0 weapon size rules -- but just don't like them.

The "realism" argument is especially strange, since D&D is wildly unrealistic. Why should the line be drawn here, instead of a hundred better places?

 

[Nyaricus]

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.
I like the kind of realism they add, but all the complication only for the sakes of realism is not enough for me.

Exactly.

I enjoy realism in my D&D games, but the changes to 3.5 only added a level of un-fun to the game which was, frankly, unnecessary.

Un-fun is not a good thing, thus weapon sizing ala 3.5 is no good for that reason above all others. With that in mind, I expect (or maybe just hope?) to see something not quite 3.0 or 3.5 weapon sizes in 4e, but something which is more of a comprimize and makes that aspect fun, or at least painless.

cheers,
--N

 

[Mouseferatu]

So the -2 is based on how the grip is wrapped? I dont think so.
A 12" Blade is a 12" blade whether its called a Med Short Sword or a Small Long Sword.

I can only assume--though of course I could be wrong--that you've never wielded weapons that would, in D&D, qualify as a longsword and a short sword.

It's not that the grip is "wrapped" differently. It's that the proportions are way off. The grip of an average short sword is much thicker and shorter, in proportion to the blade, than the grip of an average longsword. (The same is true of the blade, though some would suggest that goes without saying.) Simply increasing the relative size of a short sword so that it's the size of a longsword would result in a weapon that's completely impossible to wield. Both the grip and the blade would be far too wide for their length.

Now, there are those who don't care about that level of realism in game, and that's fine. It's a legitimate play choice. But you can choose not to care about the differences without claiming they don't exist, because they very much do.

 

[HugeOgre]

Of all the people I've played with since 3.5 came out, no one has ever complained about the new system.

I personally love it. Its intuitive, easy to use, and follows a logical rules-based system for resizing without requiring any unreasonable amount of math or fidgeting.

If they took it out, Id likely rule 0 it back in, unless they found some way to improve on it.

 

[Nifft]

This thread has brought something to my attention.

I want weapons as special effects. (Like the old thread in House Rules.)

"Weapon" should have three properties: size, damage type, and quality ("masterwork", special materials, magic). All the rest -- damage dice, critical, etc. -- can be determined by the properties of the wielder.

Cheers, -- N

 

[tlantl]

Weapon sizes are actually pretty easy once you think about them. You have knives, daggers, short swords, long swords, and greatswords. the weapon size is determined by the size of the creature. if a small creature picks up a long sword it becomes a great sword for that player. if an ogre picks up the same long sword then it becomes a short sword for the ogre. This works for all of the weapons. There isn't any need to get silly about the semantics when the easiest way gets the job done.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

There isn't any need to get silly about the semantics when the easiest way gets the job done.

Is it a job that needs doing, though? Other than screwing halfling, gnome and half-ogre player characters, what exactly does it add to the game?

And don't say "realism," because there's a million more ways to add realism to the game that no one cares much about.

 

[Nifft]

Weapon sizes are actually pretty easy once you think about them. You have knives, daggers, short swords, long swords, and greatswords.

And bastard swords.

Cheers, -- N