|
I admit that this is probably the least of our concerns with PFRPG. In fact, I don't expect much, since nothing really requires "fixing". But, what the heck.
I was a fan of the weapons being classed as sizes instead of light, one-handed, two-handed, etc. I never understood what was gained by changing it. To me, it was just something else you had to look at.
Granted, its very easy to know what weapons are what, almost second nature with most of us. But my reasoning is this. A lot of things in the rules are based on size: AC, to hit, grapple, etc. Why are weapons different? Converting damage for larger and smaller weapons use size as the factor, so why arent they just listed as such? Its just an unnecessary thing to look at.
Do I have something here, or is it much ado about nothing?
Be sure to make clear what is being discussed and what the paradigms are:
1) In 3.0, items have a 'size' that is a measure of the size of the item.
2) In 3.5, items have a 'size' that is the size of the person that uses the item in question.
My first reaction to this change was that it was a pointless change.
But after the time passed, I found that it made game play simpler. I saw far less discussion about whether something would fit or could be wielded by a given creature than when we played 3.0.
This is a case where we sacrifice a little information for those rare situations for clarity in those situations that come up more frequently.
The most frequent thing is "Can my character wear/wield this item". The 3.5 system makes answering that questions simple: If the sizes don't match, then you suffer a penalty or can't use the item. The 3.0 system it was a game of calculating the difference in relative sizes and what you were allowed to wield. "A tiny weapon is light for X, and two handed for Y, and not usable by Z". After having genuinely tried for a while, I wouldn't go back.
If you genuinely need to know the size of an item (rather than the size of the intended user), that information is available. The need is rarer, so it is covered in an less detailed, generalized fashion. (page 166, if you are so inclined). Strangely, I don't recall ever needing table 9-10...
|
|
Hmmm
Weapon is...
1 size larger than user-----2 hands
same size as user----1 hand
1 size smaller than user---light weapon
it doesn't get any simpler than that.
Nothing changes. I think it makes descriptions easier. How big is that greatsword the Ogre is swinging at my head?
3.5 Well, its 2 handed for the Ogre which 2 handed for medium is Large, so I guess that makes it..... whatever
3.0 Its huge sized. DONE.
Take the Ogre hook for example. Listed as a 2 hander. Most PCs aren't going to wield an Ogre hook unless they have a good background. Everyone knows that an Ogre can use it one handed. Why do we know that? Because its a large weapon, so why dont you just call it that.
Nothing changes. I think it makes descriptions easier. How big is that greatsword the Ogre is swinging at my head?
3.5 Well, its 2 handed for the Ogre which 2 handed for medium is Large, so I guess that makes it..... whatever
3.0 Its huge sized. DONE.
Both system are simple just in different ways. In the above case, an Ogre is Large, so it's a Large Greatsword. Done. Rarely if ever do you need to know what size category that Large Greatsword is.
Meanwhile, a party gets treasure and finds out they have a Large Kukri... who can use that? In 3.0, well, a normal Kukri is Small, and is used in one hand, possibly with dex, so a Medium one would be.. one handed but not with dex, so Large Kukri would be two handed.
3.5 the Large would indicate it's one up from whatever a Medium creature would wield, two up from a Small, without having to reference what the original size of the weapon was.
I've found 3.5 far less confusing, except during the process of converting my thinking from the 3.0 original.
Raises hand. still using 3.0 weapon sizes.
|
I think my group uses a mix of the two, myself. We don't consider the size of the weapon itself, but what the weapon is considered for a different sized wielder changes.
For instance, we had defeated a Drider in one game. This Drider carried two shortswords(but never got around to using them :) ). We looted them and figured out who could use them. Since the Drider was a Large creature, its shortswords were considered longswords for most of us. For the halflings, they were considered bastardswords. Since they were a Cleric and a Rogue, they didn't take them, and the human Ranger did.
Similarly, the Drider was carrying a shortbow. My Monk took this because he had proficiency with the longbow, and the Drider's shortbow was considered a longbow for a Medium creature.
But hey, I could be talking out of my ass here, it was a few months ago.
Come to think of it, I like the 3.0 system better. The 3.5 weapon size stuff seems to be needlessly complex to me. I avoided the topic in my games since using 3.5 for the most part. A human using a halfling sized longsword as a human-sized short sword gets some penalty for doing so? While this might be a realistic approach, with the handle being too awkward to use fully and the balance being slightly off, it is just one more thing to keep track of, without adding much to the game. Since the time of old basic D&D, having halflings using short swords as longswords worked just fine, and it even has a literary example in Lord of the Rings.
And if human wants to wield an ogres club, it would probably be a Greatclub for him, if it is a one-handed weapon for the ogre. I don´t see the need for the detailed 3.5 rules for weapon sizes.
Stefan
The problem with 3.0 is class proficiencies. For example, the druid has the scimitar on the weapons list. With 3.5 that automatically allows your Tiny/Small/Large/Huge druid to use the Tiny/Small/Large/Huge scimitar. In 3.0, you can put five different weapons on the Druid proficiency list (and Medium druids will wield the Large one two-handed) or give a big long table to "translate" class proficiencies according to character size ("According to the table, your halfling druid is proficient in the kukri, not the scimitar.") Either is sub-optimal.
What I consider to be the elegant solution is to keep the 3.5 rule, but apply the general "Size and Magic Items" rules to weapons. A ring of blinking found on a cloud giant's finger will resize to fit on the finger of a halfling; his boots of speed will fit the party's elf; let his Huge +3 two-handed-sword resize itself to fit the dwarf's hands.
I definitely like 3.5 on this one. So I will dissent and say stick with the 3.5 size/damage correlation.
Me too. See no need to change existing 3.5 rules...Had never caused a problem or concern among my players.
|
I dislike the 3.5 weapon size system because it hurts smaller PCs who usually already suffer a strength and/or con penalty and also have a hard time getting any loot because weapons found on the monsters you kill are almost always medium or larger. It sucks to have a -str penalty AND do a d4 instead of a d6 with a short sword because you're short. It's the same problem as the 3.5 size penalty for grapple combined with the strength penalty for size. It may be more "realistic" but it's alot less fun (or feasable) to play a gnome giant slayer.
I would like to see sizes and different dices discarded and have a short sword, long sword, or great sword be the same regardless of the size of who is wielding it. Then no one has to worry about how or whether it can be wielded and small people don't get double penalized.
/ali
|
I dislike the 3.5 weapon size system because it hurts smaller PCs who usually already suffer a strength and/or con penalty and also have a hard time getting any loot because weapons found on the monsters you kill are almost always medium or larger. It sucks to have a -str penalty AND do a d4 instead of a d6 with a short sword because you're short. It's the same problem as the 3.5 size penalty for grapple combined with the strength penalty for size. It may be more "realistic" but it's alot less fun (or feasable) to play a gnome giant slayer.
/ali
But you can easily use a small sized longsword which does the same damage a medium sized short sword does. So unless you are a rogue who does most of his damage be sneaking, there won't be much of a difference. The 3.5 weapon size rules actually helped small characters as they broadened the selection of weapons available to them. Before 3.5, there was no way for a halfling swashbuckler using a rapier without using monkey grip or introducing new weapons like a halfling rapier. The only double weapons available to small races were gnome hooked hammers (and the korokoburo lajatangs if you include oriental adventures). There weren't even quarterstaffs in their size. I always saw the 3.5 rules as a great improvement and would prefer them to stay.
I definitely like 3.5 on this one. So I will dissent and say stick with the 3.5 size/damage correlation.
I was going to say that I prefer the way 3.5 handles it, but since cwm thinks it's cool, I hate it now. Give me back D&D weapon sizes and do away with those WoW/4e things!!
Just kidding. ;-)
I do like 3.5 more. A large weapon is something for a large character. I liked that a lot more than the "large giant with huge greatsword, which is for large characters, and a small dagger, which is for large creatures since daggers are two sices smaller. Not to mention that things are starting to get funny if you have a colossal giant with a two-handed weapon (which is of a size category that has no name) or a dagger for a fine creature (which is two size categories smaller than the smallest size category there is)
|
|
I definitely like 3.5 on this one. So I will dissent and say stick with the 3.5 size/damage correlation.I was going to say that I prefer the way 3.5 handles it, but since cwm thinks it's cool, I hate it now. Give me back D&D weapon sizes and do away with those WoW/4e things!!
Just kidding. ;-)
I do like 3.5 more. A large weapon is something for a large character. I liked that a lot more than the "large giant with huge greatsword, which is for large characters, and a small dagger, which is for large creatures since daggers are two sices smaller. Not to mention that things are starting to get funny if you have a colossal giant with a two-handed weapon (which is of a size category that has no name) or a dagger for a fine creature (which is two size categories smaller than the smallest size category there is)
I didn't even know a dagger for a fine sized creature could even do damage, wouldn't it technically do something like 1 minus 4 points of damage, which would actually heal the target by the pure math?
That does give me an idea for a campaign, though. All player characters are Diminuative sized on average. Fruit Flies, the RPG! "You encounter a Dire Tangerine..."
I hated the 3.5 method, so my vote goes with the 3.0 way.
Problem with the 3.0 way. So I got this dagger that's small in size and I'm medium sized, that's a light weapon. No problem. But then I lend it to my diminuative friend who, by the rules, treat it as a two-handed weapon. This even though there's no way he can get his fingers around the hilt.
Or what about the giant who uses a longsword as a dagger even though he can only hold it between his thumb and index-finger not to have the blade disapear in his hand.
So maybe rules-wise the 3.0 system is simpler, but even I can't suspend my disbelief for those scenarios.
So I got this dagger that's small in size and I'm medium sized, that's a light weapon.
That's not a dagger for you. Medium daggers are tiny. That thing's basically a short sword, as it deals 1d6 points of damage (but you can still throw it. But I think you'll take -2 for using a weapon that is made for an ogre, or wasn't that in 3.0?)
|
|
Problem with the 3.0 way. So I got this dagger that's small in size and I'm medium sized, that's a light weapon. No problem. But then I lend it to my diminuative friend who, by the rules, treat it as a two-handed weapon. This even though there's no way he can get his fingers around the hilt.
Or what about the giant who uses a longsword as a dagger even though he can only hold it between his thumb and index-finger not to have the blade disapear in his hand.
So maybe rules-wise the 3.0 system is simpler, but even I can't suspend my disbelief for those scenarios.
I understand your concern. I'm not sure (my 3.0 books are long gone), but I think there was a sidebar that addresses this. We, as a group didn't allow a halfling to use a med longsword as a greatsword. Its just not made for them. We had exceptions of course. A very big medium half-orc being able to use a Large sized longsword (with training or a feat, something like that)
As I said in the OP, I understand there are "bigger fish to fry" as someone said, its just a discussion. Its not going to affect anything if it stays as is, which it will. I just wonder, if it was never changed from 3.0 to 3.5, would people run around screaming "I need to know what a 2 handed weapon is"
I still maintain that it was a pointless change from 3 to 3.5. Rules wise, nothing was changed. They just replaced Large with two-handed, medium with one-handed, etc. Like I said, its just something else you have to look at.
Oh, and I stand corrected. As I've written my own weapons list, I dont use the PHB much, and had forgotten they list small damage for every weapon, so yeah, that does make it easier for PCs.
I'd rather they just had short swords instead of small longswords, that way the players can use them without penalty.
I know that in D&D, the current thinking is that "more realistic" = "bad," but really, the proportions (hilt size & diameter vs. weight vs. blade length, etc.) would be far different for the two weapons you describe. I like to keep 'em separate. Count me in on the 3.5e paradigm here. Now, facing, on the other hand... why is a lion 10 feet wide again?
I note the 3.5 DMG has an official variant rule in the weapon equivalencies table (p.27) for characters to use, for example, small longswords as shortswords.
To me this is like comparing apples and oranges. Both rule sets are easy on the people who are used to them but they basically do the same thing. I personally use the 3.5 rules for sizing as it seemed to be "More" descriptive. But it still does the same thing.
(3.0) You are hit by a fire giant giant weilding a large Greatsword (Standard greatsword is Med doing 2d6 base, size changed to large now does 3d6)
(3.5) You are hit by a fire giant giant weilding a Greatsword. Both are considered Large size
(Standard greatsword is Med doing 2d6 base, size changed to large now does 3d6)
I never saw the difference except in description or wording.
I also agree with the size penalties if they are larger, but smaller shouldn't affect the penalties. Why? This I have no answer except it just never "Felt" right. A smaller weapon shouldn't be penalized as it isn't affected by your Strength or Dex, except to get easier to use. Larger on the other hand, eighs more, and is affected by Strength and Dex and therefore should be penalized until you train with it enough (take a feat) to where it becomes natural to adjust for the extra weight and length.
This seems like a really minor issue, more like something for a house rule. If the idea of halfling paladins never finding good magic greatswords in the dungeon really bothers people though I think that a rule which allows you to convert weapons to a smaller size using craft skills might make sense.
This should satisfy both the "my gnome giant slayer never finds magic greatswords and our campagn world has no magic stores" camp and the "how could your halfling possibly fit his hands around the hilt of the cloud giant's dagger?" camp. Slap on a new hilt, maybe grind the blade down a little, and now you're ready to go with no -2.
This might bring up the question of why to give the -2 in the first place if you can easily get rid of it. I don't really have an answer for that except that some people obviously like the 3.5 rules and this could be kind of a compromise.
This might bring up the question of why to give the -2 in the first place if you can easily get rid of it. I don't really have an answer for that except that some people obviously like the 3.5 rules and this could be kind of a compromise.
It actually sounds like a pretty good one, to me. Maybe it could require a scaling DC Craft (weaponsmith) check, to add some skill use as well?
|
|
Please re-read the rules, because the 3.0 rules for weapon size in fact make no sense whatsoever and contradict themselves. A dagger is tiny. A medium-sized creature technically can't use it. Throwing knives and shuriken as well.
In addition, should a gnome be able to wield a dagger as a shortsword (except they'd wield it like a dagger, because it's Tiny and the gnome's Small - how does that make any sense?)? How about lizardmen and longswords?
What is simpler is 3.5. 3.0 is nonfunctional in this regard, and always has been.
The rules are right, I was wrong. Its 1 or 2 sizes smaller. For a medium not able to use a dagger is just ridiculous.
As far as the Gnome and the dagger. The dagger is one size smaller so its a light weapon. I don't understand the confusion. How its wielded isnt going to change the damage.
How is 3.0 is nonfunctional? Nothing rules wise or mechanics wise has changed between 3 and 3.5. Only the headings. The weapons and how you use them are exactly the same.
Im sorry, I dont have my 3.0 books anymore. Did it list small weapon damage? If it didn't, then in that regard, 3.5 does make it easier, since most PCs are either med or small.
|
|
Im sorry, I dont have my 3.0 books anymore. Did it list small weapon damage? If it didn't, then in that regard, 3.5 does make it easier, since most PCs are either med or small.
It hat stats for a few small weapons, like halfling sianghams, halfling nunchuks, halfling kamas and gnome hooked hammers, but in most cases, small characters were supposed to use the same weapons as normal sized characters.
Im sorry, I dont have my 3.0 books anymore. Did it list small weapon damage? If it didn't, then in that regard, 3.5 does make it easier, since most PCs are either med or small.
3.0 did not list small weapon damage; nor did the PHB say that smaller-than-PHB versions of weapons were even possible. P.162 of the DMG did have rules for changing weapon size, but specifically in the context of "some opponents you might encounter". So a scimitar of a size other than Medium was, by 3.0 RAW, purely an NPC thing.