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

[Delta]

Anyone else feel the same way? I sure hope that the strange size variations in weapons goes *poof* in 4E.

I feel the same way, but I know I'm in the distinct minority, same as all the other design decisions from 3.5 forward. I think that particular one's probably a lost cause for 4E.

 

[Storm Raven]

I want a system that allows me to put stuff in the hands of the NPCs (be they ogres or kobolds) which the PCs will find useful when they kill the NPCs and take it.

So I'd like it if an Ogre's +1 longsword were usable as a Human's +1 greatsword, or if a Kobold's +2 poison longbow were usable as a Human's +2 poison shortbow.

So, you want a system that works like the 3.0 weapon sizing system did.

 

[wayne62682]

I agree. I hate the 3.5 weapon size system - it does nothing but punishes gnomes and halflings and makes them essentially less than useless in combat due to pitiful damage output (unless you're a rogue and can use sneak attack, but that shoehorns you into playing a rogue). Taking a penalty for a halfling using a human's dagger (short sword to him) is nonsense.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I always found it dodgy that the wondrous magical items (like a cloak or ring) magically resized to fit their wearer but that magic weapons didn't. Since the real beef with weapon sizes really boils down to MAGIC LOOT ISSUES it seems like an easy fix to just carry over the resize rule to everything.

DS

 

[Nifft]

So, you want a system that works like the 3.0 weapon sizing system did.

That's one rules instantiation which SOMETIMES does what I want, but not always. No-one in a PHB party could find any use for a Storm Giant's greatsword, for example.

Magically resizing magic weapons would also work, and would be a better gloss for one of the stupider aspects of enlarge person.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Jakar]

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.

 

[trancejeremy]

I don't like them. Seems like too much work for too little pay off. I also don't think you can really call them, "realistic", either. From a "realism" point of view, as written Halfings would be completely useless in combat. They're much too small and have very little mass. Which means they can't lift much or put much force in the blow.

OTOH, normal weapons simply sized for giants would be almost unliftable, even by giants. Certainly impossible to actually use in combat. While you can handwave the existance of giants by saying "magic", their strength in D&D really isn't large enough to wield weapons. Because the mass of things basically goes up exponentially as they double in size. Is something twice as big, twice as heavy? No,it's 4 times as heavy. You also have to factor in material strength and things like that.

I think actual giants and halfings would have their own unique weapons, rather than simply mimicking human ones. Halfings for instance would probably go with pointy weapons, like a stiletto. Since the only way they could possibly hurt someone is if they pack all their force in a little area.

Giants would have things harder. They would want to take advantage of their reach and long arms, but they would have to be thin, to keep things light. But at the same time, that would result in lots of breakage.

So actually, I think they probably would just use human sized weapons. Because there is a reason that the various weapons are the size they are. Not just who wields them, but the way newtonian physics works.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

That's one rules instantiation which SOMETIMES does what I want, but not always. No-one in a PHB party could find any use for a Storm Giant's greatsword, for example.

"Well, you do get the Cloud Giant's Huge Morningstar +5."

"...great. Not only can we not carry it, even if we could, nobody would buy it!"

Magically resizing magic weapons would also work, and would be a better gloss for one of the stupider aspects of enlarge person.

Yah, I think that's the best compromise between usability and realism.

OTOH, a 3.0 style system with a Craft check to fix the hilt/haft to the intended user's frame would also work well.

Brad

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

Unfortunately, SECR don't have a wizard class with a profiency with a knife or dagger. They also don't have a Storm Giant that may want to choose a wizard class but can't use a human-sized knife or dagger that he is proficient with.

The only gripe about the 3.5e weapon size rule is the weapon size penalty application. I think weapon size penalty should only apply if it is too big for you to handle, unless it can be wielded with two hands. A human trying to use an Ogre's longsword one-handed should be penalize, but using an Ogre's longsword two-handed should not.

If the weapon is smaller than the hand of the user, then it can't be used at all.

 

[variant]

So Frodo should have a penalty wielding Sting?

Yes.