3.0 -> 3.5 changes

[Meikle641]

Given that a beholder would probably be using barding of some sort it'd probably be a nonissue. But I could be wrong.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I've always maintained that equipment reforms to fit creatures of the size and shape it was made for.

Stealing a Beholder's Adamantine carapace is cool, but it's not going to suddenly shrink, and fit around you. Unless you are also a Beholder (or Beholder Kin of a similar shape), and about the same size category.

A Dwarf stealing an Elf's mithral shirt, and having that resize is fine. they're both medium sized humanoids, and a PHB PC race character could conceivably wear a Minotaur's Armour (given liberal uses of Enlarge Person). So long as they're not a Halfling or Gnome.

Of course, having a ball of armour suddenly transmogriphy to fit a human is awesome.

I'm going to have to agree with you on that one. Arbitrarily resizing & reshaping armor could be it's own type of magic enhancement: 'tessellated tesseract' armor. Fits right in with morphic sizing metalline weapons as a shapechanger's best friend. And also for all of you fans of that movie with the armored robot strippers and the Russian who somehow stole a robot bikini from the strippers and a couple of ropes from Wonder Woman.

[Ice9]

Humans have 2 handed Rapiers. You might know them as Katanas. Two hands gives better leverage, strength and speed than one hand does.

They're not really shaped the same. The whole "small creatures use daggers as swords" thing always struck me as stupid. Different weapons have different shapes, not just different sizes, and it means that apparently it's impossible to make a halfling-sized quarterstaff or lance.

And why is it even necessary? We don't say that "A human-sized breastplate counts as full plate for halflings" or "a human can wear gnome chainmail as a chain shirt". Because it would be stupid. But because magic weapons arbitrarily don't resize, this whole mess arises. So just make them resize, like every other fucking magic item.

[Shiritai]

Also Souran.... on 2-handed Rapiers. You're an idiot, not because of what you said, but because you're parroting one of the WoTC designers when you say that nonsense; and repeating a wrong won't ever make it right.

Humans have 2 handed Rapiers. You might know them as Katanas. Two hands gives better leverage, strength and speed than one hand does.

I call bullshit. Other than both being swords that can only be used in single time, how the heck is a rapier like a katana? Everything from the hilt to the tip of the blade is different.

[Jilocasin]

I'm also wondering what reasoning you're using to think that a katana and a rapier have much of anything in common. A katana is designed for two hands, and well pretty much always two hands (some exceptions of course apply), your left hand is your power and your right hand is your guide. The rapier, which really includes a wide variation but for our purposes I'll assume we mean a "straight-bladed, two-edged, single-handed sword which is self-sufficient in terms of both offense and defense". The rapier typically relies much more on subtle wrist movements. The only similarity I can imagine is that they could both be thought of as finesse weapons, but that's about where it stops.

[Username17]

I call bullshit. Other than both being swords that can only be used in single time, how the heck is a rapier like a katana? Everything from the hilt to the tip of the blade is different.

An actual rapier is pretty similar to a katana. When D&D talks about rapiers, they actually mean épées.

Which is of course my primary complaint with people getting on my nuts about whether it makes any sense to use this sword or that sword in two hands. If you aren't going to do enough research to tell me what the fuck sword you are actually talking about, how the fuck should I or anyone else know whether it makes any sense to use the damn thing in any particular fashion?

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

One genuinely neat idea that 3.5E had was the idea that some magical item enchantments didn't always have to be plusses, that they could also just be flat cost enhancements.

They didn't take this idea far enough and the flat-cost enhancements tended to be overpriced, but still. A good original idea that came out of 3.5E.



Oh, also don't forget how 3.5E screwed over the shorties, either. I'm still vaguely upset that Andy Collin's fucken 'small rogues can't sneak attack as well' tripe because core.

There's a reason why I call that sack of crap a rat bastard constantly.

[Jilocasin]

Explain to me, or perhaps someone can point me to a previous post/thread that explains to me, why you think it doesn't matter whether this sword or that sword is one handed or two handed? If the reason is something along the lines it being a game that doesn't actually simulate the differences in weapons all that well then I agree. If we're talking about an épée and a katana in reality then they are actually quite dissimilar.

[Username17]

For a game that treats these two weapons as identical:

It is actually insulting to have them turn around and rant at me about realism as regards pommel diameter.

-Username17

[PoliteNewb]

Humans have 2 handed Rapiers. You might know them as Katanas. Two hands gives better leverage, strength and speed than one hand does.

Okay, what the fuck.

http://www.digital-eel.com/scans/images ... er_big.gif

This is a rapier. It's a one-handed sword with a fancy hilt (this is part of why you don't two-hand it), and a long straight blade you use primarily to stab the shit out of people. It is double-edged, and you CAN cut people with it, but that's not the primary method of use.

http://i723.photobucket.com/albums/ww23 ... rgaroo.jpg

This is a katana. It's a two-handed sword with a long hilt and a very small, simple guard (it can be used in one, but most traditional Japanese sword styles use both hands), and a curving single-edged blade you use primarily to chop people into cutlets. It has a sharp tip, and you CAN stab people with it, but again, that's not the primary method of use.

The two could almost not be more dissimilar, as swords go.

Oh, and you were at least right, JE, that humans have two-handed rapiers (or rapier-like swords): they're called Estocs (or Tucks). Like the rapier, it's a straight and narrow-bladed thrusting sword, but with a longer and simpler hilt.

Here:
http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/pr ... 000056.jpg

It's bad enough that over 4 editions, nobody bothered to correct Gygax's bullshit mangling of armor, but please, let's not extend ignorance of weaponry any further.

Sorry for the complete derail.

[Jilocasin]

For a game that treats these two weapons as identical:

It is actually insulting to have them turn around and rant at me about realism as regards pommel diameter.

-Username17

Alright, thank you. Totally reasonable.

[Judging__Eagle]

Also Souran.... on 2-handed Rapiers. You're an idiot, not because of what you said, but because you're parroting one of the WoTC designers when you say that nonsense; and repeating a wrong won't ever make it right.

Humans have 2 handed Rapiers. You might know them as Katanas. Two hands gives better leverage, strength and speed than one hand does.

I call bullshit. Other than both being swords that can only be used in single time, how the heck is a rapier like a katana? Everything from the hilt to the tip of the blade is different.

In D&D, as Frank noted, the games designers frankly don't care enough about things like reality, or research when doing things.

Daggers are of a single type. While swords come in several types.

That alone is stupid and insane. Humans have developed more types of knives than they have created types of swords, or other weapons. I mean, humans have made up whole new types of knives "just because", the Bowie Knife was invented by a guy who didn't want to have his handle slip out of his hands when stabbing bison or cows (srsly); the British army researched and invented a knife just for killing during the second world war, and every facet of the tool is meant to make stabbing at, or cutting into, human beans easier. Using a flip knife, or a stilleto, or a goatherd's, or a gardener's, or a tile-cutter's knives is all going to be different. The gardener and goatherd's knives have curves and blades that stick out at right angles to the main blade; a tile-cutter's knife is a round disk meant to cut brittle tiles. An Ulu is a chopping tool with a curved, semi-circular, blade, and a handle along the middle 'back' of the blade (it's a chopping tool mostly, the handle allows for rocking the curved blade back and forth). I could go on and on and on.

All of those knives count as a 'single' type of melee weapon in D&D. A chef's knive and a stilleto count as the same thing.

Telling me that edged, double-lever, force-multipliers like swords should suddenly be extra special fucking snowflakes is so insulting not only to anyone who wants to play a knife-user, but to the fact that every part of the world has knives that are unique to their region of origin in terms of use and development.

Swords are sharp metal sticks that are swung around to accomplish one thing:killing. Knives are tools made of metal, and humans have used them in countless variations for thousands of years for a wide range of tasks, usually for very fundamental and crucial things. Everything from a BLT sandwich, to a successful surgery, is based on the fact that someone had the right knife for the right task. The only thing that someone can say about a sword is that either you have one when you need to kill someone, or that you don't have one, and you did something else to accomplish your goal of killing a human being. A sword is able to be replaced, a knife, almost always, cannot.


A "rapier" in D&D is a 1-handed, finessable, melee weapon, that focuses on using a single edge, and a point, to kill people. I think everyone can agree to that. You slash by making calculated, and eventually, instinctual motions that draw the weapon's slashing edge along your opponent's field of space. Ideally, you'll be using your hips and legs to be the main driving force in each motion, with the arm and wrist being used as the guidance mechanisms for each motion. Additionally, a rapier can stab; this involves more upper chest work, and developed pectorals and shoulders can help here. As with anything related to the body being used to accomplish a task, a firm abdominal core allows to greater flexibility, speed, endurance and power.

A Katana used Nitto style (one handed) is... pretty much the same fucking thing.

A Katana used with both hands, is pretty much the same as a rapier from a mechanical standpoint. You hold a handle, and use your legs, hips, torso and shoulder to power movement, and the arm, hand and wrist to guide direction.

There are knives that seriously fight more dissimilar than a rapier and a katana. A stilleto has specific uses as a stabbing implement, while a Bowie can slash, cut and bash; with some stabbing as well.

Also, don't give me any BS on "two hands can't fit". That's the whole fucking point. The person using a rapier with two hands can fit both of their hands on the Rapier's hand, because their hands are small enough to fit on the handle at the same time.

This isn't a debate stating that Humans or Dwarves using a rapier two-handed. This is Burahobbits and Gnomes, or Gobwins and Cobalts. Their hands are small enough to fit around a human-sized Rapier's handle.

At a -1 to hit penalty, of course.

[TOZ]

This thread inspired me to leaf through the 3.0 PHB my friend gave me. Rangers really did suck balls. Besides that, the only other thing I noticed is that the 3.5 book had better layout. Fucking whitespace tables. And Spell Mastery having a notice in the feat section telling you to go to the wizard page, because only wizards can have it. Made me wonder why they wasted the space.

[PoliteNewb]

JE, please don't try to retroactively say something different than what you said. You said:

"Humans have 2 handed Rapiers. You might know them as Katanas. Two hands gives better leverage, strength and speed than one hand does."

That statement is completely, utterly wrong.

If you wanted to make the point that knives and daggers are generalized, so swords should be too, that's a valid point, and I could agree with it.

If you wanted to say that if you generalize them enough, all swordfighting styles try to do the exact same thing (kill people with pointy metal), THAT is a valid point, and I could agree with it (although I think generalizing fencing styles in that way is taking abstraction a little too far, but hey, to each his own).

If you meant to say "rapiers and katanas are both swords, they should be treated the same mechanically just like all knives are treated the same mechanically", that's valid.

But that's not what you fucking said. If that's what you meant and what you're trying to say now, okay, great, happy fucking day. But don't act like everyone else is a dumbass because you said something that was wrong and got misunderstood.

[Username17]

This thread inspired me to leaf through the 3.0 PHB my friend gave me. Rangers really did suck balls. Besides that, the only other thing I noticed is that the 3.5 book had better layout. Fucking whitespace tables. And Spell Mastery having a notice in the feat section telling you to go to the wizard page, because only wizards can have it. Made me wonder why they wasted the space.

3.5 Layout gets +2 points for putting the Diplomacy DCs in the Skill chapter next to the Diplomacy entry instead of in the DMG under influencing NPCs. But then it loses a point again for having the Charm Person spell reference that same section of the DMG that no longer has the DCs table and instead has a pointer back to the PHB's Diplomacy skill chart.

But rather than totaling up every point in its favor or against it, I'm just going to do the grand total: the 3.5 PHB doesn't cover any more ground than the 3e PHB does and it's a couple dozen pages longer. So I think that in terms of information output, the 3e PHB has a narrow edge.

-Username17

[Red_Rob]

But that's not what you fucking said. If that's what you meant and what you're trying to say now, okay, great, happy fucking day. But don't act like everyone else is a dumbass because you said something that was wrong and got misunderstood.

Ironic name is ironic.

In other news, while there may be more types of daggers than swords, I honestly don't really care. There's a reason the genre is called "Swords and Sorcery" and the fact is that "knife fighter" is already enough of a specialism without going into the specifics of using a stilletto over a bowie knife.

[Judging__Eagle]

Actually, what I meant to say in my first post was that the "idea" of a rapier held in two hands is not only highly logical, but we've already done it. A Katana is the principles of a Rapier, with extra muscle applied to it.

The shape, and handle, is different, but honestly, I don't give a damn. They're the same type of sword.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Actually, what I meant to say in my first post was that the "idea" of a rapier held in two hands is not only highly logical, but we've already done it. A Katana is the principles of a Rapier, with extra muscle applied to it.

A rapier is a weapon specialized for killing unarmored rapier-wielding opponents in an elegant fashion, right? Is the katana designed for the equivalent purpose? The curved blade and focus on cutting implies mounted use (but I'm no expert; maybe that's just a specialization towards two-handed use).

[Username17]

Actually, what I meant to say in my first post was that the "idea" of a rapier held in two hands is not only highly logical, but we've already done it. A Katana is the principles of a Rapier, with extra muscle applied to it.

A rapier is a weapon specialized for killing unarmored rapier-wielding opponents in an elegant fashion, right? Is the katana designed for the equivalent purpose? The curved blade and focus on cutting implies mounted use (but I'm no expert; maybe that's just a specialization towards two-handed use).

The curved blade emphasizes use against unarmored opponents. It enhances the effects of sharpness. That's why cavalry sabers are curved (used by cavalry against unarmored footmen), and that's why traditional Arabic scimitars are curved too (not much armor use in the Arabian Peninsula for obvious reasons).The Katana is a peasant murdering weapon.

-Username17

[TavishArtair]

Japan has lousy armor making techniques besides compared to Europe.

[Ravyn Dawnbringer]

Actually, doing some kendo myself, I can assure you that the two are remarkably similar.

The Katana is a two handed, curved sword made with the idea that you would not be carrying a shield (or peasant) in the other hand, and so focuses on killing another Katana-wielding (and most likely samurai) opponent in an elegant fashion. It is built to defeat unarmored opponents, as there was next to no armor in feudal Japan and what there was was not of high quality. It was not meant to be used on horseback, that's the dai-katana. Most of the motions you make will be short, controlled strikes made with the upper body and a forward stride, with the rest being parries done in the same manner and some stabs, though those are rare. Saw some use in war.

The rapier, from what I have gathered, is a one-handed, straight blade made with the same thought in mind, and focuses on much the same target, in the same frame of mind (killing a guy trying to kill you, while being as efficient and pretty as possible). It was built to defeat unarmored opponents, as the rapier saw use mainly as a dueling weapon, due to the lack of ability to gain the same edge while fighting four guys than a good ol' sword and board can. Most of the motions you make are short controlled stabs, made with the upper body and a stride forward, with parries, ripostes and the occasional slash thrown in.

Remarkably similar in function, yet they are completely different in form. Interesting thought for me, thanks den.

[Psychic Robot]

This was simply because Andy Collins hated people who didn't fight with Greatswords. He straight up said so. He said that it was "wrong" for people to do more damage with two short swords (hence the Power Attack change) or a falchion (hence the crit change).

Any chance of getting a quote on this?

[Username17]

This was simply because Andy Collins hated people who didn't fight with Greatswords. He straight up said so. He said that it was "wrong" for people to do more damage with two short swords (hence the Power Attack change) or a falchion (hence the crit change).

Any chance of getting a quote on this?

The original discussions are three purges and seven years ago on WotC's boards. Best I can do off hand is secondary quotes from the period from places like Enworld:

While I agree with Andy Collins' sentiment that Power Attack should be more appealing to "the greataxe-wielding barbarian" than to "the twin-dagger-wielding halfling rogue," I that think allowing wielders of two-handed weapons to gain double the usual benefit from the feat is a huge mistake.

-Username17

[erik]

There's a reason why I call that sack of crap a rat bastard constantly.

Indeed. I recall one GenCon when me and the wife were walking past the WotC zone and she asked who the guy was getting mobbed by people [andy collins].

I think my response was along the lines of "Oh, that's the guy who is ruining DnD."

[Jacob_Orlove]

This was simply because Andy Collins hated people who didn't fight with Greatswords. He straight up said so. He said that it was "wrong" for people to do more damage with two short swords (hence the Power Attack change) or a falchion (hence the crit change).

Any chance of getting a quote on this?

The original discussions are three purges and seven years ago on WotC's boards. Best I can do off hand is secondary quotes from the period from places like Enworld:

While I agree with Andy Collins' sentiment that Power Attack should be more appealing to "the greataxe-wielding barbarian" than to "the twin-dagger-wielding halfling rogue," I that think allowing wielders of two-handed weapons to gain double the usual benefit from the feat is a huge mistake.

-Username17

A quick google search of those quoted characters plus Andy's name turns up the following:

http://www.andycollins.net/Theories/thr ... eories.htm

It didn't work correctly. This is a tricky category of changes, because it encompasses a variety of issues. A spell's description might be worded in such a way as to confuse players as to its actual effect. A feat might be least useful to exactly the characters who are most drawn to it. A monster might be so complicated to run that DMs couldn't use it effectively. None of these rules are necessarily broken, but none of them work in the manner they were intended. These aren't "necessary" changes in the way the first two categories might be, but D&D shouldn't be a bait-and-switch game. If Power Attack looks most exciting to the greataxe-wielding barbarian (and the game sells it that way), then he should be the one getting the biggest bang for his buck from the feat, and not the twin-dagger-wielding halfling rogue. The game should deliver what it promises