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

[JDJblatherings]

I alwasy thought the 3.5 weapon size rules were awful. A small long sword is no longer a long sword so it is pointless to call it a long sword.

Q) A tiny greatsword....uh, excuse me a how can it be tiny and a greatsword?
A) " Oh well a properly sized race will use it the same way a human would use a greatsword.

No they wouldn't. What makes a weapon what it is is in fact it's physical nature. Change the size and you are not dealing with the same weapon.

I'm all for throwing pixie swords and halfling hangers on the weapons list and think it is a heck of a lot more evocative then small shortswords.

 

[The Souljourner]

Put my vote in for keeping 3.5 weapon sizes. It's makes SO much more logical sense, and is actually *easier* to deal with in game than 3.0's version.

DM: Ok, the ogre was using a longsword
PC: wait, when you say longsword, do you actually mean a greatsword that he's just wielding in one hand?
DM: No, it's an ogre sized longsword.... which I guess means it's like a greatsword for you. Right. Ok.
PC: Ok, great, I have weapon focus in greatsword
DM: But it's a longsword....
PC: but to me it's a greatsword...

As opposed to this:

DM: The ogre had a large longsword.
PC: hmm, damn, I guess I could wield that in two hands and get a -2 penalty... probably not worth it


As for the "I want my players to be able to use the loot from the bodies" .... that is, honestly, the most ridiculous reason I've ever heard for not wanting 3.5 weapon rules. Ogres don't use weapons that are appropriate for human sized people to wield. It's ridiculous for the PCs to think that they should get usable items from every encounter. I can't tell you how often I've fought salamanders and had to carry around huge longspears, trying to find *someone* that will buy them from the party. I guess we needed to go find some giants to sell them to.

3.5's way is much more logic, is much easier to talk about in-game, and scales from tiny to gargantuan with no problem. It's no more complicated, and in fact is *less* complicated because you don't have to know what weapon magically converts into what other weapon when someone of a different size picks it up.

-Nate

 

[The Souljourner]

Q) A tiny greatsword....uh, excuse me a how can it be tiny and a greatsword?
A) " Oh well a properly sized race will use it the same way a human would use a greatsword.

No they wouldn't. What makes a weapon what it is is in fact it's physical nature. Change the size and you are not dealing with the same weapon.

If everyone in the world and all their things were suddenly shrunk to tiny size... I think you'd find that you could still pick up a baseball bat and use it to hit a baseball. Now, I'll grant you that there are some differences for smaller and larger people that would crop up in the real world that are ignored in D&D, but for the most part, smaller people wielding smaller versions of tools work exactly like larger people wielding larger versions of tools.

-Nate

 

[JDJblatherings]

DM: Ok, the ogre was using a greatsword as you would a longsword.

PC: Ok, great, I have weapon focus in greatsword

 

[BarkingDeathSquirrel]

For what it's worth, throw my vote in for 3.5 weapon sizes. Although, I wouldn't care if they dropped the -2 penalty for inappropriate sized weapons. Then people get the best of both worlds.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I'm in agreement with the "keep 3.5 weapon sizes." Perhaps the blade of a small longsword is the same as that of a medium shortsword, but the grip of the small longsword has been made for a smaller hand.

 

[MarkB]

I alwasy thought the 3.5 weapon size rules were awful. A small long sword is no longer a long sword so it is pointless to call it a long sword.

Q) A tiny greatsword....uh, excuse me a how can it be tiny and a greatsword?
A) " Oh well a properly sized race will use it the same way a human would use a greatsword.

No they wouldn't. What makes a weapon what it is is in fact it's physical nature. Change the size and you are not dealing with the same weapon.

So, do you also give halflings and gnomes an Intelligence penalty for having brains one -eighth the volume of those of humans?

 

[JDJblatherings]

So, do you also give halflings and gnomes an Intelligence penalty for having brains one -eighth the volume of those of humans?

No, I think a halfling Fighter would be able to do 1d4 points of damage with a dagger.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Another 3.5 sizing rules hater. It's just another level of micromanagement in a game whose core mechanics claim abstractness. No thank you.

(I also join with Nifft in preferring damage based on character rather than equipment. If the system is abstract, make it abstract! Weapon choice should be about background and style not crit ranges and damage dice.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Put my vote in for keeping 3.5 weapon sizes. It's makes SO much more logical sense, and is actually *easier* to deal with in game than 3.0's version.

DM: Ok, the ogre was using a longsword
PC: wait, when you say longsword, do you actually mean a greatsword that he's just wielding in one hand?
DM: No, it's an ogre sized longsword.... which I guess means it's like a greatsword for you. Right. Ok.
PC: Ok, great, I have weapon focus in greatsword
DM: But it's a longsword....
PC: but to me it's a greatsword...

As opposed to this:

DM: The ogre had a large longsword.
PC: hmm, damn, I guess I could wield that in two hands and get a -2 penalty... probably not worth it

Why have weapon size rules at all, then? Just say "no, dude, you're not an ogre. Give it up."

As for the "I want my players to be able to use the loot from the bodies" .... that is, honestly, the most ridiculous reason I've ever heard for not wanting 3.5 weapon rules.

Yeah, because the idea of getting upgrades off the bodies of the fallen is WAY out of the mainstream for D&D.

Ogres don't use weapons that are appropriate for human sized people to wield. It's ridiculous for the PCs to think that they should get usable items from every encounter.

Re-read the thread: Halflings and gnomes (and half-ogres, for that matter) will either get the lion's share of gear, or next to no gear, unless the DM contorts the game world to provide gear for everyone, or provides Halaster's Used Weapon Emporium for them to trade things in at.

How is the game improved by saying "sorry, Frodo, you chose to play a small character. Enjoy the masterwork small shortsword you'll be using for the next eight levels."

I can't tell you how often I've fought salamanders and had to carry around huge longspears, trying to find *someone* that will buy them from the party. I guess we needed to go find some giants to sell them to.

Hooray?

3.5's way is much more logic

And it's entirely bizarre that they decided to skip hit points and armor class and a hundred other illogical things in D&D to jump on the huge problem of weapon sizes to impose realism at last.

D&D is an inherently stylized game. If you're looking for gritty realism, this is the wrong place.

It's no more complicated, and in fact is *less* complicated because you don't have to know what weapon magically converts into what other weapon when someone of a different size picks it up.

And since no one but a complete idiot would use a differently sized weapon in 3.5, unless they're playing a highly cheesy race or have a highly cheesy feat, the rules might as well not exist anyway. The DM just has to say "no," and move on.

The 3.5 weapon rules are a whole lot of verbiage dedicated to giving a rationale for saying "no," when people on this thread have adequately demonstrated that weapons of different sizes wouldn't be easily used by different sized creatures anyway. They smack of someone in a position of high authority at WotC having a personal bugaboo over the old rules and, despite it not being a real problem, decided to fix it anyway.

Again, how is the game better under the new rules? And if you say you want realism, be prepared to make some wholesale changes in the game, because this is just the tip of the iceberg.