Can we try to do away with the 3.5 small/medium/large weapons?
Our group thought the 3.0 way of doing it was much better: A medium dagger was wielded as a small short sword or a tiny long sword.
That made much more sense.
It also made it much easier to outfit your characters without a weapon shop handy.
That made much more sense....No, no it didn't.
It certainly made more sense than having a small longspear have the same reach as a medium longspear.
It certainly made more sense than having a small longspear have the same reach as a medium longspear.That made much more sense....No, no it didn't.
What's worse, getting one reach weapon wrong or getting the entire weapon size system wrong?
Unless there's a plausible explanation - clearly something I haven't been able to come up with - why non-Medium races are too inept to fashion weapons appropriate for their size I agree with OneWinged4ngel.
It certainly made more sense than having a small longspear have the same reach as a medium longspear.That made much more sense....No, no it didn't.What's worse, getting one reach weapon wrong or getting the entire weapon size system wrong?
Unless there's a plausible explanation - clearly something I haven't been able to come up with - why non-Medium races are too inept to fashion weapons appropriate for their size I agree with OneWinged4ngel.
I think that each race would build weapons sized to themselves. However, a human who picks up a halfling two handed sword would likely wield it as a longsword rather than be totally inept with it.
Also, while I'm on the subject, a centaur has a human sized torso. So, why does it wield large sized weapons?
Both 3.0 and 3.5 has a bunch a flaws when it comes to weapons. I would let logic dictate when a weapon of one size can be used as another weapon of a different size.
It really depends on the type of weapon it is, whether it can be used by creatures that are larger or smaller than for the creature size it was designed for.
If a creature can use a sword like blade, then it surely would be able to use sword like blade for creatures of different sizes, by treating the weapon as the equivalent sized weapon suitable for the creature. A dagger would be a perfect sword for a tiny creature, while a two handed sword word be a sword for a large creature, while a short sword for a huge creature.
[Cross]-bows on the other hand is rather restricted to the creature size it can be used. Though a long bow could easily be treated as a short bow for large creatures.
The general applying rules of either system to weapons, simple don't work. Each weapon type should be looked at individually with suitable rules provided for the weapon type.
|
I think that each race would build weapons sized to themselves. However, a human who picks up a halfling two handed sword would likely wield it as a longsword rather than be totally inept with it.
This is actually how it works now.
Non proficient (AKA "totally inept") = -4 penalty.
Wrong size = -2 penalty.
The weight is wrong and the balance is funky, be the human in question is not totally inept. It's just not really functional the way its supposed to be either.
Both 3.0 and 3.5 has a bunch a flaws when it comes to weapons. I would let logic dictate when a weapon of one size can be used as another weapon of a different size.
It really depends on the type of weapon it is, whether it can be used by creatures that are larger or smaller than for the creature size it was designed for.
If a creature can use a sword like blade, then it surely would be able to use sword like blade for creatures of different sizes, by treating the weapon as the equivalent sized weapon suitable for the creature. A dagger would be a perfect sword for a tiny creature, while a two handed sword word be a sword for a large creature, while a short sword for a huge creature.
[Cross]-bows on the other hand is rather restricted to the creature size it can be used. Though a long bow could easily be treated as a short bow for large creatures.
The general applying rules of either system to weapons, simple don't work. Each weapon type should be looked at individually with suitable rules provided for the weapon type.
It would just be nice to see that in the rules instead of having to house rule it.
Since my group is play testing, we are being careful not to impose any house rules.
It certainly made more sense than having a small longspear have the same reach as a medium longspear.
Amen!
Unless there's a plausible explanation - clearly something I haven't been able to come up with - why non-Medium races are too inept to fashion weapons appropriate for their size I agree with OneWinged4ngel.
I've got one for you. A tiny heavy mace would essentially be a large guage ball-bearing on the top of a quarter-inch dowel. I don't care how strong a pixie you are. If you hit me with it, it's not going to do any significant damage. Blunt weapons derive their damage from the weight of the weapon combined with the force of impact it is delivered with.
Our group thought the 3.0 way of doing it was much better: A medium dagger was wielded as a small short sword or a tiny long sword.
That made much more sense.
That does make sense. Unfortunately that *wasn't* the 3.0 rules on the subject. That would be some simple house rules that were widely adopted for the similar shaped weapons - and were so for 3.5 as well. I believe Sage Advice even had a mention of this.
The problem isn't with dagger/short sword/longsword.
The problem is with a Medium weapon wielded by a small character that has no larger equivalent (say a medium rapier?).
Overall there were benefits to both the 3.0 system and 3.5 system, and I lean heavily towards the 3.5 system as making more sense. But this specific issue is outside of both, and easily fixed in both.
I really like the 3.5 system as-is. The only real problem with it is the reach of small characters & weapons (and reach when using wrong sized weapons). I consider these problems to be the result of deciding that Small races be standard PCs, and thus making Small and Medium indistinquishable on the battlemat.
So, yeah. Leave it be.
The general applying rules of either system to weapons, simple don't work. Each weapon type should be looked at individually with suitable rules provided for the weapon type.
I'm with DOtD but I find it's much easier to just play with the 3.5 system and adjust weapons on the fly. If a player wants a weapon that is for a different sized creature then I make the call on the spot. For example a Goblin in our campaign has a very nice 'longbow' but I've already decided if the characters want it then they can use it as a shortbow.
I don't call it houseruling, I call it DMing. When it all boils down DMing is 3 things. In order of importance:
#1 making the game fun
#2 building a framework of decisions to help the players suspend disbelief
#3 understanding and enforcing the rules system.
|
I think this is one of the things 4E did right. Having all weapons for starting characters be the same size made things a lot simpler when it came to purchasing equipment. It also made it easier to put in random loot during an adventure if there's one or two small PCs. Otherwise, tossing in a 'small' item (as random loot from a chest or something, not necessarily found off small creatures) makes it seem obvious who it's meant for, takes some of the feeling out of the decision in who gets it.
Then again, with PCs being able to start as Large, having weapon sizes is nice. I'm all for a simpler weapon system though.
3.0 worked just fine. Let's have some fantasy weapons built for little folks and big folk and leave themedium weapons as they are. Needle swords and Petal blades for the pixies, kneeaxe for a gnome, skullcrack hammers for ogres, stuff like that. Evocative, fun and not contrary to real world definitions.
So now we need a new weapon list for each size category, even though the stats could be exptrapolated using the current weapon die tables?
No thank you.
It is possible to have it both ways, if thats how you want it in your world. Have a gnome call his Small Battleaxe a kneeaxe (even though he won't be stiking at knees against another Gnome or a Kobold). An ogre can call his Large Warhammer a skullcracker. A pixie can call his acorn-hilted Tiny Rapier a needle sword.
Dennis, I believe many DMs would have just made a decision on the fly. Though it would be nice to have some guidelines in the rules to aid DMs in dealing with weapons for different sized creatures.
I simple method I have had used in the past was to leave out the weapon, armour, or item size out in the description of the treasure. Once the character takes the item to use, the size is then set for that item for the rest of it's existence. That solved the problem of trying to include specific different size items in treasure hordes.
Thus if a Pixie takes a long bow to use from the treasure horde, then it becomes a tiny bow for humans, elves, etc from that point onwards.
Now if a pixie bow does not exist on the weapon list, the additional rules for scaling would be used. If it is a sword, then creature size rules can be used instead without changing the weapon size, though the range would need to be scaled.
The main idea is to have rules to help DMs in resolving weapon size issues for creatures.