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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

A +1 Shortsword is usually better than a Shortsword itself. But if I also suffer a -2 penalty with it, it's usefulness is greatly reduced...

I didn't really like the 3.5 approach that much, but maybe it is just for the -2 penalty. Using weapon size and handedness has a few advantages (most notably, it's easier to come up with names). Maybe the rules should say:
For each category that a weapon is smaller than the characters size, reduce its handedness by one step for the character. For each category that a weapon is larger than the characters size, increase its handedness category by one step. If the effective handedness goes below light or above two-handed, the character cannot use the weapon.
A weapon can only grant reach if it is wielded as a two-handed weapon, regardless of its effective handedness for the wielder.

The weapon still requires the same proficiency. No talk about claiming that a short sword might be a Longsword to a Halfling or something like that.

 

[Campbell]

A +1 Shortsword is usually better than a Shortsword itself. But if I also suffer a -2 penalty with it, it's usefulness is greatly reduced...

I didn't really like the 3.5 approach that much, but maybe it is just for the -2 penalty. Using weapon size and handedness has a few advantages (most notably, it's easier to come up with names). Maybe the rules should say:
For each category that a weapon is smaller than the characters size, reduce its handedness by one step for the character. For each category that a weapon is larger than the characters size, increase its handedness category by one step. If the effective handedness goes below light or above two-handed, the character cannot use the weapon.
A weapon can only grant reach if it is wielded as a two-handed weapon, regardless of its effective handedness for the wielder.

The weapon still requires the same proficiency. No talk about claiming that a short sword might be a Longsword to a Halfling or something like that.

I think Wizards might be ahead of you. In Star Wars Saga weapons are listed with a same size categories as creatures and a weapon of your size is considered one-handed.

 

[Jack99]

I like the 3.5 rules. I my campaign, I have the several tribes of halflings notorious for their barbarians and their small greataxes. Noone laughs of "puny" halflings anymore

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Call me a 100% supporter of the weapon size rules of 3.5.

At first, I balked at the 3.5 weapon size rules, thinking them odd, but became a convert after I noticed I had direct physical evidence of the sense behind them.

Among other things, I own a skean dhu (a small boot-blade) the length of my hand as well as a letter opener of the same length which is a scale replica of a basket hilted long blade in a museum in Toledo, Spain.

The hilt of the skean dhu takes up about half of the blade's overall length. Its more than an inch around. In contrast, the scale replica blade has a hilt less than an inch long, and is as narrow as a PDA stylus.

The width of the letter opener's blade is about that of a standard #2 pencil, whereas the skean dhu has a blade 3/4" wide at the base.

The volume and mass of the skean dhu is many times that of the letter opener.

Under 3.0 rules, the two blades- essentially a dagger for a human and one-handed weapon for a pixie- would have the same stats since they are blades of the same size.

Yet clearly they are not. A human seeking to use the letter opener as a blade would cut his hands wielding it thus (since he'd be gripping several inches of blade), and would likely break it on the first strike. A pixie wielding the dagger would stagger under its mass, and would find it to be more like wielding a caber than a longsword.

So count me among those supporting carrying over the 3.5 weapon size rules into 4Ed.

 

[Ravellion]

3.5e weapon rules were more realistic, but were annoying in game, mostly when the group wanted to redivide its weapons among them, but other examples have also been mentioned. So for me, realism shmealism, let's hope they go back to one-size fits all weapons.

Rav

 

[Klaus]

Count me in as another vote for the 3.5 system (or something similar). I don't think it's all that difficult, and it makes a lot more intuitive sense. A human short sword shouldn't count as a halfling longsword. There are just too many differences in form and construction.

Agreed.

If anything, it isn't hard to add a 0gp ability to weapons and shields (much like the light generating quality):

"Sizing: a magical weapon may be imbued with the ability to resize to match its wielder size, up to its own original size. So a Medium +1 longsword with the sizing quality could shrink to be comfortably wielded by Fine, Diminutive, Tiny and Small creatures."

 

[BryonD]

I'll pile on.

3.5 weapon sizes are great.

 

[Nifft]

Those rules made sense to me. An ogre's longsword is a different weapon than a halfling's longsword.

What's so hard about that?

I expect the party to kill many things of many different sizes, while remaining the same size themselves.

It would be nice if the stuff the PCs looted was useful to them in some way.

That's really all I want from weapon size rules.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'll pile on.

3.5 weapon sizes are great.

Yes, but they are still confusing. I think the 3.5 rules are best combined with the size equivalency option from the DMG -- I'm willing to handwave away the real differences in construction between different sword types in favor of making weapons more useful to PCs.

A simpler method might be to ditch weapon size completely, and just scale weapon damage strictly by character size. You'd have to suspend disbelief a bit -- PC "My halfling fighter picks up and wields the ogre's longsword!" DM: "OK, but now it only does 1d6 damage" -- but it would simplify playing the game. That way you just have a longsword, not a small longsword or a medium longsowrd, and every class that can use a longsword can use a longsword (unlike 3.0 where a small character couldn't use a certain weapon because it was the wrong size).

The question is how much realism do you want versus good game mechanics versus simplicity in play.

 

[Marshall]

Under 3.0 rules, the two blades- essentially a dagger for a human and one-handed weapon for a pixie- would have the same stats since they are blades of the same size.

Uh, no theyre not. A human Dagger is a two handed sword for a Pixie(If you consider the pixies tiny, as you are). If you consider pixies to be the same size as halflings(as the book does) than the letter opener is a toothpick. Being generous, you might consider it a stilletto.

What you are describing isnt a function of the 3.0 weapon size rules, that are VASTLY superior to the 3.5 garbage, its a function the creature size rules in the MM. An 18" Pixie is not the same size category as a 3' halfling. The Halfling is TWICE the Pixies size.