|
I've never used the weapon size categories rule introduced in 3.5.
1. The -4 penalty felt too small to represent the alleged different design between a Tiny and a Medium greatsword.
2. Also, I couldn't get my head around the fact that the thousands of Medium shortswords are so similar that the biggest-handed combatant can use without penalty a shortsword made to fit the fine and delicate hands of another combatant.
3. Finally, it felt like way too much hassle for the rare situation when the party would be forced to use inappropriately sized weapons. You can pull a "naked-in-Lilliput" trick only a couple of times before the players protest.
I disagree i like Weapon Size Categories it makes for more personilzation of a character (like Paizos own Iconic Barbarian and her large bastard sword)
I strongly prefer the 3.5 system to the 3.0 system. Maybe the 3.0 system is simpler for Medium characters (maybe), but it becomes much more complicated and limiting for characters of other sizes. This works OK for games like Star Wars, where almost everyone is Medium, but D&D has so much size variety.
The 3.5 system covers everything and is pretty easy in my opinion. Even if you think it was a needless change, it would be another needless change to revert.
But there is one other thing never discussed about weapon size:
How much reach has (say) a long spear made for HUGE creatures?
Or how much is the range increment of a COLOSSAL Long Bow?
The Spear won't be 10 ft, right?
I'd say reach and range increment have to be changed to multipliers of the standard natural reach.
F.e. A medium creature has a NR of 5 ft. So a weapon with 10 ft. reach would be x2. A bow or whatever with a RI of IDK say 60 ft. would be x12.
There is but one thing that should be incorporated as well:
A LARGE Long spear has a reach of 20 ft. (actually +10 ft.)
A MEDIUM creature wielding a LARGE long spear should therefor have a reach of 15 ft. and neither 10 or 20 ft.
Hope you got my point.
- DD
|
|
There is but one thing that should be incorporated as well:
A LARGE Long spear has a reach of 20 ft. (actually +10 ft.)
A MEDIUM creature wielding a LARGE long spear should therefor have a reach of 15 ft. and neither 10 or 20 ft.
3.5
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.A Medium long spear is a two-handed weapon. Therefore a Medium creature may not wield a Large long spear at all.
Wasn't there a feat (monkey-grip) or a race ability (powerful build) that allowed that?
|
|
I strongly prefer the 3.5 system to the 3.0 system. Maybe the 3.0 system is simpler for Medium characters (maybe), but it becomes much more complicated and limiting for characters of other sizes. This works OK for games like Star Wars, where almost everyone is Medium, but D&D has so much size variety.
In 3.0, the dagger of a Huge creature = shortsword for a Large creature = longsword for a Medium creature = great sword for a Small creature
That seems simpler than the 3.5 system. The core races are Small and Medium and 3.5 is less favourable for Small characters, as it reduces their weapon's damage dice. (Weapon shrinkage)
I'm not sure why 3.0 is limiting for characters of other sizes.
The real problem with 3.0's system was that it created weird results.
3.0, by necessity allowed different-sized versions of the same weapon (see the weapons that 3.0 giants wielded). How did these different-sized versions of weapons interact with weapon proficiencies?
Well, either you ruled that a character's weapon proficiency was tied specifically to weapon size (in which case you had gnome druids stuck wielding Medium scimitars in two hands, with no Small scimitar available), or it was with all size-varying versions of the weapon (so wizards could proficiently wield Large-sized daggers, equivalent of greatswords, just like the standard Tiny-sized ones).
3.5 avoids that by automatically scaling the weapons a character is proficient in to the character. It also provided the Weapon Equivalencies table (DMG 27) for people who wanted to keep the dagger-through-greatsword continuum with the new rules.
|
|
The real problem with 3.0's system was that it created weird results.
3.0, by necessity allowed different-sized versions of the same weapon (see the weapons that 3.0 giants wielded). How did these different-sized versions of weapons interact with weapon proficiencies?
Well, either you ruled that a character's weapon proficiency was tied specifically to weapon size (in which case you had gnome druids stuck wielding Medium scimitars in two hands, with no Small scimitar available),
Gnome druids could commission a Small scimitar (allowed under the 3.0 rules) or they could use the 3.0 Dagger (1d4) as a Light (3.0) weapon or the 3.0 sickle (1d6) as a Medium (3.0) weapon.
With 3.5, they now must use a 1d4 weapon or suffer the -2 penalty. I'm aware of the good critical range on the scimitar, but I'm not sure if the reduction of the base dice and of the number of usable weapons is worth it.
or it was with all size-varying versions of the weapon (so wizards could proficiently wield Large-sized daggers, equivalent of greatswords, just like the standard Tiny-sized ones).
In 3.0, "Large-sized daggers" were not the equivalent of greatswords, they were greatswords. Also, with three size categories of difference between a dagger (Tiny) and a greatsword (Large), I'm not sure how one could argue with a straight face that the proficiency in the Tiny weapon could extend to the Large one.
Gnome druids could commission a Small scimitar (allowed under the 3.0 rules) or they could use the 3.0 Dagger (1d4) as a Light (3.0) weapon or the 3.0 sickle (1d6) as a Medium (3.0) weapon.
This would be all the better claimed with a page cite.
Assuming it's true, though, if one proficiency in Scimitar covers both Medium and Small scimitars, then we've got the same "weapon proficiency holds even as the size changes" situation below.
In 3.0, "Large-sized daggers" were not the equivalent of greatswords, they were greatswords.
Look at p.162 of the 3.0 DMG, "Weapon Size and Damage" section, where a "Large version of a longsword" is specifically named, without any declaration that it is a greatsword. Large daggers are simply a logical extrapolation of this.
On the other hand, if we ignore that and do declare that a Small dagger is a short sword, then a Large wizard cannot use any bladed weapon, because a dagger is too small for him to wield and he isn't proficient with the short sword.
Also, with three size categories of difference between a dagger (Tiny) and a greatsword (Large), I'm not sure how one could argue with a straight face that the proficiency in the Tiny weapon could extend to the Large one.
Why not? They're already extending across two size categories in the case of the scimitar. With the principle granted, why is extending across four size categories too far?
The point being such decisions have to be made ad hoc in 3.0, while the 3.5 weapon size rules cover that directly, with a uniform, consistent penalty for size differences.
If the 3.5 rules had been the ones printed in 2000, no one would have invented the 3.0 rules as an alternative to them.
My mistake; the Large wizard could still use the Tiny dagger as a light weapon in 3.0. In fact, a Colossal creature could use a Fine weapon without any difficulty as a light weapon, which was ludicrous.
By the way, ever look at the rogue weapon list in 3.0? Whether a rogue has proficiency with certain weapons was dependent on whether the rogue was Medium or Small. Of course, this meant that the class didn't scale at all to non-PHB races. (Did a halfling rogue reincarnated as a human suddenly gain proficiency in the rapier?)
The 3.0 rules were a mess of special cases and brittleness; the 3.5 rules are systematic and flexible. The "Weapon Equivalencies" table fixes the only real loss, that of monster loot; having magic weapons resize themselves to the wielder (just like magic clothing and rings resize to the wearer) fixes it even more thoroughly and consistently.
|
|
This would be all the better claimed with a page cite.
Gnome druids could commission a Small scimitar (allowed under the 3.0 rules) or they could use the 3.0 Dagger (1d4) as a Light (3.0) weapon or the 3.0 sickle (1d6) as a Medium (3.0) weapon.
I assume you would like some references for the creation of different size versions for weapons:
Smaller versions of weapons:
See 3.0 SRD
srdmonsterss.rtf
Grig
[...]
Attacks: Diminutive short sword
Damage: 1d3-3
Larger versions of weapons:
srdmonstersg.rtf
Hill Giant
[...]
Attacks: Huge greatclub
Damage: Huge greatclub 2d6+10
Frost Giant
[...]
Attacks: Huge greataxe
Huge greataxe 2d8+13
Cloud Giant
[...]
Attacks: Huge greataxe
Gargantuan morningstar 4d6+18
Assuming it's true, though, if one proficiency in Scimitar covers both Medium and Small scimitars, then we've got the same "weapon proficiency holds even as the size changes" situation below.
Not quite. The proficiency is limited by what the character can actually wield. A gnome couldn't wield a Large scimitar, but he could wield a Tiny, a Small or a Medium one.
In 3.0, "Large-sized daggers" were not the equivalent of greatswords, they were greatswords.
Look at p.162 of the 3.0 DMG, "Weapon Size and Damage" section, where a "Large version of a longsword" is specifically named, without any declaration that it is a greatsword. Large daggers are simply a logical extrapolation of this.
3.0 SRD: As a weapon gets larger or smaller, the damage it deals changes according to the following progression:
[...][b]For instance, a Large version of a longsword does 2d6 points of damage (up from 1d8).
It's a greatsword (2d6, 19-20x 2) for all purposes.
Looking at the dagger - shortsword - longsword - greatsword progression, I noticed that they threatened a critical on 19-20 x2. I'm not sure it's a coincidence.
On the other hand, if we ignore that and do declare that a Small dagger is a short sword, then a Large wizard cannot use any bladed weapon, because a dagger is too small for him to wield and he isn't proficient with the short sword.
In 3.0, Large creatures wouldn't commission Small daggers when they could use shortswords and treat them as daggers.
Also, with three size categories of difference between a dagger (Tiny) and a greatsword (Large), I'm not sure how one could argue with a straight face that the proficiency in the Tiny weapon could extend to the Large one.
Why not? They're already extending across two size categories in the case of the scimitar. With the principle granted, why is extending across four size categories too far?
The extension for the scimitar is only one step and it's downwards. Extending proficiency in a Tiny weapon (dagger) to a Large Two-handed weapon (greatsword) is quite different.
The point being such decisions have to be made ad hoc in 3.0, while the 3.5 weapon size rules cover that directly, with a uniform, consistent penalty for size differences.
Not quite. The issue would come up if the gnome druid would insist on using a weapon with a lower damage die. Wizards insisting on using greatswords was simply an abuse that could be dealt with by common sense.
I assume you would like some references for the creation of different size versions for weapons:
No. I'm looking for where 3.0 says that a gnome druid can use the smaller weapon with the scimitar proficiency. Monsters automatically have proficiency with any weapon mentioned in their descriptions, so they don't constitute evidence that the gnome druid can do so.
Not quite. The proficiency is limited by what the character can actually wield. A gnome couldn't wield a Large scimitar, but he could wield a Tiny, a Small or a Medium one.
And a human wizard could wield a Large weapon in two hands, so he commissions a Large dagger . . . .
To make this a more direct analogy -- can a human druid commission and wield a Large scimitar? How about a Large druid -- is the largest scimitar he can use proficiently use a Medium, Large, or Huge? Cite an actual 3.0 rule that gives that answer, since you suggested that we use the 3.0 rules.
(If you actually meant to suggest your campaign's house rules, you need to write them up clearly so people can evaluate them; Pathfinder can't adopt them unless you say what they are.)
In 3.0, Large creatures wouldn't commission Small daggers when they could use shortswords and treat them as daggers.
Again, where does 3.0 say that Large creatures can use short swords with the dagger proficiency?
Not quite. The issue would come up if the gnome druid would insist on using a weapon with a lower damage die. Wizards insisting on using greatswords was simply an abuse that could be dealt with by common sense.
That is, 3.0 as written doesn't actually work without extensive DM judgment, while 3.5 works directly as written for all creatures from Fine to Colossal. Which means the 3.5 rule is superior from the viewpoint of publishers, since they can equip NPCs to the rule instead of guessing what "common sense" is from gaming group to gaming group.
|
|
Thank you for bearing with me. Your remarks made me dig deeper and I have realized that 3.5 penalizes Small creatures only in exceptional cases and that it actually benefits them:
- Two-weapon fighting with a Light weapon
3.0
Belkar
Primary hand: shortsword (1d6)
Off-hand: dagger (1d4)
3.5
Belkar
Primary hand: Small longsword (1d6)
Off-hand: Small dagger (1d3)
The difference is minimal.
- Scimitars
3.0
Gnome druid
Two-handed: scimitar (1d6)
One-handed: sickle (1d6)
Light: dagger (1d4)
3.5
Two-handed: no Large slashing weapon proficiency which is consistent with the Medium druid's proficiencies.
One-handed: Small scimitar (1d4) or Small sickle (1d4)
Light: Small dagger (1d3)
In the case of other weapons, Small creatures are better off in 3.5.
Small characters have also finally access to all the weapons which didn't have a "human smaller version", such as the quarterstaff, shortspear, all the Martial reach weapons.
Examples
3.0
shortsword (1d6) - longsword (1d8) - greatsword (2d6)
handaxe (1d6) - battleaxe (1d8) - greataxe (1d12)
3.5
Tiny greatsword (1d8) - Small greatsword (1d10) - Medium greatsword (2d6)
Tiny greataxe (1d8) - Small greataxe (1d10)[/b] Medium greataxe (1d12)
In 3.5 a halfling barbarian can use a Small greataxe for 1d10 or a Small greatsword ((1d10) whereas in 3.0, the best weapon he could use was the battleaxe (1d8) or the longsword (1d8).
The only wierdness I have run into with the 3.5 weapon system, which 3.0 prevented, was small reach weapons. When a two handed weapon is defined as being the same size category as the user, that makes a small longspear about 4 feet in overall length and a medium longspear around 8 feet. I can see the medium longspear having reach, but I have a hard time accepting the small longspear as a reach weapon.
Other than that, the 3.5 system does work rather well.
Edit: That is one other bit of wierdness in 3.5. The cost of a small weapon is the same as a medium weapon. Smaller weapons and armor should have a price discount.
IN my home game i use Monte cook's Arcana evolved weapon System. It is a more evolved (no pun i swear) form of what was in 3.0 and in mijit and giant friendly
Thank you for bearing with me. Your remarks made me dig deeper
Hey, no problem whatsoever. The change from 3.0 to 3.5 was subtle enough that it isn't obvious at first that anything was gained for the complexity of having size modifiers added to all weapons. I didn't notice the advantages of 3.5 until I tried to create my own expanded weapons tables using the 3.0 weapons rules for characters ranging in size from Tiny to Large.
IN my home game i use Monte cook's Arcana evolved weapon System. It is a more evolved (no pun i swear) form of what was in 3.0 and in mijit and giant friendly
Hmm. I'll have to look at that.
Ahah. Arcana Evolved doesn't give classes proficiency with specific weapons; it gives proficiency with whole groups. The feats do the same thing. Then it rearranges the groups to include (for example) the club and the greatclub both in simple weapons, where 3.0 and 3.5 don't.
(Exceptions are the magister, though it fits if you consider the group in this case is the narrow "staves", and the dagger, which isn't moved in with the other martial weapons.)
Yeah, you can do it that way, if you're willing to re-arrange the weapons table and modify proficiencies. Of course, that gives the same damage advantage to larger creatures that 3.5 does; the human cleric can use the greatclub in two hands while the gnome cleric is limited to the club in two hands.
Put my vote with the 3.5 system. The 3.0 system got stupid fast. (i.e. What's the difference between a greataxe and a large battleaxe, or a huge dagger and a greatsword? A normal dagger and a tiny greatsword?)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Put my vote with the 3.5 system. The 3.0 system got stupid fast. (i.e. What's the difference between a greataxe and a large battleaxe, or a huge dagger and a greatsword? A normal dagger and a tiny greatsword?)
Ross, would you check to make sure you've got them right? The way I remember it: the 3.5 revision cares whether a three-foot hunk of sharpened steel is a medium longsword or a small bastard sword. 3.0 did not distinguish between them (used one-handed by Valeros, or two-handed by Lem.)
I have medium sized weapons for everyone, as well as extra large greatswords for giants and extra small daggers for halflings.
But a 1d8/19-20 slashing sword is the same, I don't make a difference between a small greatsword or a medium longsword.
True, an oversized gladius would make a bad arming sword, but I think here practicability comes before realism.
Put my vote with the 3.5 system. The 3.0 system got stupid fast. (i.e. What's the difference between a greataxe and a large battleaxe, or a huge dagger and a greatsword? A normal dagger and a tiny greatsword?)Ross, would you check to make sure you've got them right? The way I remember it: the 3.5 revision cares whether a three-foot hunk of sharpened steel is a medium longsword or a small bastard sword. 3.0 did not distinguish between them (used one-handed by Valeros, or two-handed by Lem.)
It did have a difference, because damage types didn't change. A Giant's dagger did piercing, even if you had to use it two handed (and if the grip was thicker than your arm). A human's greatsword always did slashing, even if it was being used by a Storm Giant. A Large battleaxe did 2d6, while a greataxe did 1d12. Doing it otherwise had to be house ruled.
I like the 3.5 system. At it's most basic level, it deals with the fact that the haft of a longsword and short sword are the same size, and both are bigger than what a halfling would make for himself. A giant's hatchet is not going to be balanced properly for a human: it might weigh as much at the human!
Granted, it doesn't cover all cases perfectly. A centaur, for instance, might be strong enough and heavy enough to use a hill giant's weapons properly, but his hands are the same size as a human's. If I were a centaur smith, I'd make weapons with grips sized for humans, but I'd make weapons heavier to work with my extra strength, but they'd be bad for both humans and giants. An ogre and a hill giant might share weapons, but a frost giant is MUCH bigger than an ogre, but both are large and use same weapons. I accept these because no system can expect to cover all cases, but at least 3.5 covers more cases than 3.0.
Tiny Greatsword? Small longspear? doesn't anyone see the problem there?
The sleeves on a long-sleeved shirt for a three-year-old might only be as long as the sleeves on a short-sleeved shirt for me, but that doesn't make the kid's shirt a short-sleeved shirt; it's a tiny long-sleeved shirt.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
But there is one other thing never discussed about weapon size:
How much reach has (say) a long spear made for HUGE creatures?
Or how much is the range increment of a COLOSSAL Long Bow?
Missile weapon range doesn't change, although that is odd.
In terms of reach, the rules are a bit inconsistent on this point, but basically, you either have reach or you don't. You don't get "extra" reach for a bigger weapon. There are some exceptions to this (tentacles, tendrils), but weapons aren't one of them.
Ex: A rapier is a one handed sword intended for thrusting attacks about 2.5 centimeters wide at the base, a meter long and weighing in at about a kg. Change that to 18" long and it isn't a rapier anymore.
Okay. So, what's your suggestion for the name of a weapon with the same proportions as a rapier, scaled for someone who is three feet high? And what makes that name any more sensible than "Small rapier"?
But there is one other thing never discussed about weapon size:
How much reach has (say) a long spear made for HUGE creatures?
<snip>
I'd say reach and range increment have to be changed to multipliers of the standard natural reach.
Er, that's the 3.5 rule for reach already. See the first paragraph of p.113.
Now, that doesn't address the normal human wielding a large longspear, but by the RAW, an oversized reach weapon still only doubles reach. Which, given how much the character is going to have to be choking up on the large longspear to handle it, 10' is arguably as reasonable as the 15'.
Yes but a huge spear in Arcana Evolved (3.0) would be sized for a giant to wield. 2 handed weapon and all that.
When the PC find or buy weapons they are still sized for a given wielder size, there is even a spell in the rule set whose hole function is to make the (small)short sword into the appropriate hilt and balance for a non small charterer to use as the equivalent weapon.
The hafling is not going to pick up the human's longsword and start two-handing it (without a penalty) unless the weapon gets sized to match him.
That makes no sense in the multi-racial world usually portayed by modern D&D print campaigns. The races are everywhere, certainly halflings and humans. A halfling fighter is profficient with simple and martial weapons, the longsword is a common martial weapon used by humans, is see no reason at all that halfling fighters wouldn't be trained to heft these suckers in a two handed grip.
Besides the fact that a halflings hands are much smaller than a human's? Or the fact that a halfling smith would actually make weapons at the right size? How about the fact that a halfing might still want a dagger at his own scale from time to time, instead of one scaled as a short sword to him?
A halfling fighter CAN use a longsword in a two-handed grip. They're even considered proficient. They'd just take a -2 penalty for the fact that it doesn't fit their hands right. (If you don't believe me, try holding a piece of two-inch PVC pipe in any type of grip. Then try a one-inch piece of pipe. To a halfling, a human-sized grip would feel like the 2-inch pipe.)
I can easily imagine a 2 inch diameter grip, I've used polearms in recreasionist and LARP combat and they often can be 1.5 to 2 inches in diameter at the grip.
My son is 2/3 my height and about 1/3 my weight, he has no trouble gripping my bastard sword, he just isn't strong enough to wield it.
If a human polearm is 2 inches around, then imagine using a 4-inch one. As for your son, how old is he? A halfling is about the size of a 4-year old. (1/2 the height and 1/5 the weight). A halfling benefits from having weapons sized and balanced for a halfling. They CAN use human weapons, and even be effective with them (-2 is not a dealbreaking penalty). But they benefit from having halfling-sized weapons. I don't really see the problem here.
|
My problem with 3.5 weapon sizes was the fact they didn't seem to scale.
greatsword small 1d10, medium 2d6, large 3d6
bastard sword small 1d8, medium 1d10, large 2d8
longsword small 1d6, medium 1d8, large 2d6
short sword small 1d4, medium 1d6, large 1d8
a small bastard sword is the equivalent of a long sword, a medium bastard sword is not the equivalent of a large long sword.
a small greatsword is the eqivalent of a bastard sword, a medium greatsword is not the eqivalent of a large bastard sword.
so what happens when your small fighter with a greatsword is enlarged? They should do more damage than their medium counterpart as a d10 scales up to 2d8... (the full blade in Arms and Equipment, but thats another discussion...)
The old system seemed better, but i can see with all the above comments why it had to change, especially as races would make size appropriate weapons. It was very open to abuse and required a great deal of thought to bring in new weapons. My only problem is with the fact 3.5 small weapons do more damage than they should.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Well over all it seems that small creatures are getting penalties too many sources when it comes to weapon damage. Most small creatures suffer a negative racial modifier to their Strength score and have to use weapons with a lower damage potential then medium sized counterparts.
Take the same dagger and give it to a Human and a Halfling. The dagger itself would cause the same size wound either way. The damage would only be modified by the force applied by the wielder which would be represented by the overall damage modifier not the base weapon damage dice.
We all can realize that combatants in the real world would have weapons custom made for their stature. But this is also a fantasy game that should provide some flexibility to such things to make things a little fairer.
The only penalty that should be applied is a penalty to hit, which when stacked with the penalties for strength really lower the damage output of a small combatant. In order to have the potential damage increase by using a larger weapon his chance of hitting drops. This is very noticeable when using one handed weapons instead of a two-handed weapon.
There should be a feat or class ability given to combative classes such as fighter, ranger, paladin and rogue that would allow small creatures to use medium sized weapons with no penalty to hit as follows.
Medium Dagger – no penalties
All other Medium Light Weapons = Small One Handed Weapons
Medium One-Handed Weapons = Small Two-Handed Weapons
One of the many reasons I dislike having different sized versions of each weapon is when handing out treasure I have to make sure I include enough non medium sized gear to go around since there is no mechanic in the game to change the size of a magic weapon without a house rule which does not transfer into Living campaigns such as Pathfinder Society and various RPGA events.