2E and Weapon sizes

[Modesitt]

So I'm in an argument with someone about 3.5 weapon sizing. Quoth them: "Originally, all PCs were the same size and used the same weapons. Then 3.0 made a split between what small PCs and medium PCs wielded." I'm almost certain they're wrong, but I can't remember with certainty if that's how it was in 2E and I don't know at all about 1E.

Can anyone here tell me with certainty if small characters had to use smaller weapons in earlier editions?

[Fwib]

On page 73 of my 2e PHB(TSR 2101, 11th printing) it describes how you can only wield weapons up to your own size in one hand, one size larger in two hands and larger weapons not at all - much like in 3.0

2e halflings and gnomes were size S, and dwarves were either S or M

[edit]So, it was more that small characters couldn't use big weapons than having to use smaller ones

[Username17]

If by "originally" he means "back when Halflings were a character class" then yes. There was no size restriction on what weapons you could use, Halflings just had a weapon list that happened to have a pile of relatively small weapons on it.

-Username17

[Crissa]

If anyone wants to explain how the 3.5 weapon sizes make things more immersive or more interesting, or, heck, easier, please inform me.

...But since I've been playing, critters had sizes, and so did weapons (1ad, 2ad, 3e)

-Crissa

[Fwib]

Can anyone say what actual benefit the 3.5 weapon-sizing system has? (apart from neatly separating the size of the weapon and the size of the creature it was made for, which I dont think we really needed to do, anyway) I'm sure there are benefits, I just can't remember what the problems with 3.0 were that it fixed, right now.

[Essence]

The problem of a human wielding a Large Dagger as a 2-handed weapon but still accessing it's 10' thrown range increment.

That's about it, AFAICT.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

The benefit to 3.5 weapon sizing is that Halflings who wish to use longswords can actually use long swords, not just a human short-sword which you pretend is a long sword. There isn't any reason why gnomes and halflings wouldn't make their own weapons sized to their specifications (rather than a human's), and really a gnomish longsword would not really look much like a human short sword so much as a smallish short sword.

The problem with it is that it perpetuates the "Smallies get the shaft" design principle that has existed since at least 3.0. Small-size longswords do less damage than medium sized short swords (which they were using before)

-Desdan

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Also, since you only rarely fight small BBEGs to get their crap, small races get screwed again.

It's a somewhat reasonable ida, but gets really screwed up in the implementation.

To be honest, I think that small and medium weapons should do the same damage, since small races are already penalized with a strength penalty. (Amongst the races in the PHB, at least. Knowing WotC, there's probably a lot of small races with strength bonuses.)

[power_word_wedgie]

1134853618[/unixtime]]Also, since you only rarely fight small BBEGs to get their crap, small races get screwed again.

During GenCon two years ago, I asked this question to the designers during a book signing. Their answer was that, "Well, you now get magic weapons made to your size, so it isn't a big deal." Personally, I didn't like this analogy because it kinda throws in the face the whole analogy of having a magic weapon go from age to age. However, the weapon crafting rules already do that to some extent so I guess it's a bad preference that I have been holding on to for a while. Anyways, I still don't like the 3.5 weapon sizing rules. (and material DR, but that's another item ...)

[Crissa]

If we have weapon sizing rules, why don't we have armor sizing rules?

-Crissa

[Username17]

1134844787[/unixtime]]The benefit to 3.5 weapon sizing is that Halflings who wish to use longswords can actually use long swords, not just a human short-sword which you pretend is a long sword.
-Desdan

Um... actually you could do that before. There was this handy thing called the "weapon equivalency table" for scaling weapons up and down. Giants have greatswords in both 3rd edition and 3.r. However, in 3rd edition, a Fire Giant's greatsword is called a "Huge Greatsword" while in 3.r it is called a "Large Greatsword". That's not a change.

The change comes where characters get penalties and may be banned from using weapons made for creatures of a different size, in addition to penalties and bans for items being physically too large or too small for them to interact with. So when you have an iron frickin sphere, in addition to figuring out if it is the right size for your character to be able to throw it, you also have to figure what size of creature was intended to throw it - which is bullshit because it's just a fvcking iron sphere.

The big achievement that 3.5 came up with was a shift in nomenclature in which weapons are listed by the size of their intended wielder instead of by actual absolute size. This is in almost all cases meaningless, except that the rules no longer tell you what size of object a dagger or shortsword is (which is important if you are trying to hit one with an attack). So even that minor change is very slightly bad for the game.

The extra layer of weapon size intention penalties is perplexingly stupid much more often than it is in any way good. Heck, ranged weapons now have all the same range regardless of size, so mountain giants can reach farther than they can throw many weapons.

---

As Essence said, the only advantage is that it stopped the loop where a character could use a Cloud Giant's Dagger as a Longsword and still throw it without taking a feat. And honestly, I don't even care about that.

And they added new loops where now only melee weapons are restricted by size caps, so anyone who wants can fire a Titan's Longbow. So if you were the kind of person who had the problem that your players used Cloud Giant Daggers, you probably now have the problem that people are now using longbows made for ticks (which now have the same fvcking range as real longbows).

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

While I can see some of the points made regarding weapon sizing, I really don't see why 3.5 sizing rules are all that bad. In all honesty the 3.0 rules just felt clunky and nonuniform.

You were constantly wondering whether something was in fact a large shortsword or a longsword, because both of those might have different game effects. Now the mechanical benefits of mixing and matching weapon nomenclature wasn't significant at all, but on a conceptual level, 3.0 weapon sizes just felt stupid IMO.

Basically we either need to have weapons based on handedness (as 3.5 does) or based entirely on size.

If size is going to determine how many hands it takes to wield a weapon, then you shouldnt' have greatswords and shortswords and longswords. You should just have swords. A longsword could be a medium sword, a greatsword a large sword, and so on.

Or you can do what 3.5 does and have weapon types that determine handedness, and the weapon type itself must be appropriately sized.

The 3.5 system is actually a bit more realistic, but in a fantasy game, the first mentioned system may work better.

The 3.0 system was neither of those. It was always "on the fence" about what it wanted to do and I found that distasteful. You had a large longsword which was the same as a greatsword which was the same as a huge shortsword.

Every type of weapon should have exactly one way to describe it so you can create meaningful game labels for stuff. The 3.5 system can do that. The 3.0 system could not.

[Fwib]

The name of a weapon is about its shape, rather than its size, in both 3.0 and 3.5. The confusion caused for people who may have to use both systems is bad, I think.

The penalties for wielding wrong-size-creature weapons which you are otherwise phyically capable of using I think are way excessive. -1/size category, the same as the actual penalties/bonuses for size changes would be much more sensible, if you want to have this efect at all.

Regarding using 3.0 large daggers as greatswords - I dont recall anyone ever trying that in any of our 3.0 games, but I acknowledge the (minor) problem.

As far as 3.5 weapons' physical sizes - they're the same as creatures - see page 166 of the PHB - however this will introduce annoying edge cases where you arn't sure if a weapon sits on one side or the other of a size boundary.

Regarding weapon ranges - I agree those need a fix - they need to have some basis in size and probably strength - not to mention firing at high and low targets.

How do you argue that the rules allow you to use bows from creatures much much larger than you, Frank? I glanced at the rules in the equipment chapter, but on a brief reading, I don't see it that way.

[User3]

1134896444[/unixtime]]
You were constantly wondering whether something was in fact a large shortsword or a longsword, because both of those might have different game effects.

What? Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

A "medium shortsword" was usable as a longsword by a medium character, just as a "medium longsword" was. In fact, any melee weapon that was "medium" was usable one-handed by a medium character if that's what they wanted to do.

There's nothing to wonder. Nothing to get confused by. The actual physical size of each weapon was listed right on it and matched up to how characters of different sizes could wield it. The only thing that was stupid was that a "medium weapon" was actually a "small object" for when its own object properties mattered, which was somewhat clumsy. However, that's nothing compared to the fact that in 3.5 a "medium light weapon" might be tiny or diminutive when it comes to its own object properties, and it doesn't even say, you just have to guess.

Now there's something to wonder. You have to wonder what the object size differential is for each weapon because it's no longer constant by weapon size. That's crap.

Before, there was literally nothing to wonder. All the information was displayed in the weapon stats. 3.5 introduced a more cumbersome terminology that takes more space and causes more problems and most unforgivably provides less information.

-Username17

[Username17]

The above was me.

How do you argue that the rules allow you to use bows from creatures much much larger than you, Frank? I glanced at the rules in the equipment chapter, but on a brief reading, I don't see it that way.

The new restriction on using weapons is no longer tied to the weapons physical size being more than one weapon size larger than your own size, it's now being pushed past two-handed. Which for a Huge Greatsword (now a "large greatsword") means the same thing. Before that was two sizes larger than your character, and now it's made for a character larger than you and was already two-handed so you can't use it.

But... for a Longbow that is not the same. Ranged weapons do not have a designation of light, one-handed, or two-handed. So while a Giant's Longbow used to be a "huge weapon" and therefore unusable, now it's a large weapon that doesn't have a two-handed tag on it and therefore is not increased past two-handed. So the rules on what the maximum size ranged weapon you can use no longer exist.

-Username17

[Fwib]

Ranged weapons do not have a designation of light, one-handed, or two-handed.

So changing a ranged weapon's size doesn't make it into any of these categories.

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.

OK, that isn't entirely clear, but I think it says that you can't wield a ranged weapon of a different size than you are, beacuse it isnt "light, one-handed, or two-handed" (so not even a smaller ranged weapon)

[Username17]

Um... no. Only melee weapons change designations. Ranged weapons not only have nothing to change into, they also don't change.

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 category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was deisgned.

So if it doesn't have a light, one-handed, or two-handed designation, it doesn't get altered by one step, and therefore doesn't get changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed.

Not, of course, that it would make any more sense if a halfling couldn't use an elf's light crossbow, but it doesn't actually support that interpretation.

-Username17

[Fwib]

Would you accept that the wording in the bows that they 'need at least 2 hands to use them' makes them 2-handed, for the purpose of 'how much effort it takes to use them' ?

Crossbows [edit]and thrown weapons/slings/etc[/edit] being a little less clear..

[Username17]

Whether or not something takes two hands to use is completely separate from whether it is a two-handed weapon or not. A lance continues to be a two-handed weapon even when you use it in one hand. That's one of the pieces of stupid that the 3.5 weapon size rules bring up. A medium longsword is still a "one-handed weapon" even while used in two hands.

A small lance used by a human on horseback in two hands is a two-handed weapon that can be used in one hand that is treated as a one-handed weapon that is being used in two hands. Fvck that. Seriously.

-Username17

[Modesitt]

The 3.5 weapon sizing rules serve an extremely valid purpose in the D&D ruleset. They're the part of the system you explain when you want to make new GMs and players cry. The terminology is so incredibly confusing and non-intuitive that you have to wonder if WotC included those rules for the sole purpose of being a question in the D&D version of Trivial Pursuit.

In addition, I nominate the word "size" and all of the associated words(Small, Medium, Large, etc) as the new levels.

[Josh_Kablack]

Hey now, in 3.5 a halfling rogue who is the subject of Enlarge Person no longer picks up additional weapon proficiencies for the duration of the spell, like they did in 3.0.

That plus the elimination of the dagger abuse loophole almost compensates for the 3.5's craptacular interaction between the penalties for innappropraitely sized weapons and the improvised weapon rules. Almost.

[RandomCasualty]

1134929409[/unixtime]]
What? Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

A "medium shortsword" was usable as a longsword by a medium character, just as a "medium longsword" was. In fact, any melee weapon that was "medium" was usable one-handed by a medium character if that's what they wanted to do.

There's nothing to wonder. Nothing to get confused by.

There was a lot to get confused by I found. Like how many hands it took to wield a large greatsword for instance. It was actually two handed for a large creature, but one handed for a huge creature and so on. That was well... complicated.

It'd have actually worked if it was just called a large sword, and everything was based on size comparison. So if you were greater than the size of your weapon it was considered light, if you were equal to it, it was a one handed weapon and if the weapon size was greater than your size by one, it was two handed. That'd have probably worked the best.

The 3.0 rules weren't like that though. Because you had so many damn equivalencies and little logic to it.

A small greatsword was in fact one handed for a medium creature and a light weapon for a large creature, and the same thing as a longsword. It was also the same thing as a large shortsword. And that was just dumb and overly complex.

If size is going to be the be all end all, then all you need is size. You don't need "longbow" and "shortbow" and "longsword" and "shortsword" and all that other crap. You just need a size and a weapon type. Small sword, large sword, medium sword, huge sword, etc.

3.0 had too many labels that served little purpose other than to confuse you. Lets look at all the ways there are to describe one weapon, the same weapon.

large shortsword= medium longsword= small greatsword = huge dagger = tiny full blade.

And the main problem here is that you've got proficiencies and weapon focus feats and such that count this weapon as different things. So the game considers your weapon differently if you choose to call it a tiny full blade instead of a large shortsword.

While the differences may have been minor, ultimately the system was much more complex than it had to be for no purpose. At least in 3.5 a large longsword and a medium greatsword are two separate weapons and you don't have that crazy "call it what you want" ambiguity of 3.0.

[PhoneLobster]

OK this dagger abuse loophole trash talk is annoying me.

What is the big deal about big daggers?

OK so its a simple weapon with d8 maybe d10 damage (depending on how big) and it has a nicer than minimum critical and pretty much minimum throw range. And its two handed.

Hurray for that.

Meanwhile the mundane everyday spear is a simple weapon, one or two handed, has 1d8 damage, x3 on a critical and has a much nicer throw range. (pretty much the best thrown weapon on the standard list).

And if you must you can probably upsize it for the average of +1 damage, but who cares?

Pretending anyone ever cared about a mighty "dagger loophole" thats no more powerful than an existing weapon is a bit nutty.

Let me rephrase this last bit. RC complains about complexity because of multiple synonyms for what is mechanically the same weapon. Then praises the simplicity of a system where there are muliple synonyms for what is nearly mechanically the same weapon except there are now also varying penalties for each character size depending on the synonym.

[User3]

The spear-sized dagger did 2d6 damage, and could be used by a wizard. It isn't broken in most games, but some DMs tend to get a bit peery when they see out-of-the-box wizards using throwing greatswords at no penalty.

[Crissa]

1134966257[/unixtime]]There was a lot to get confused by I found. Like how many hands it took to wield a large greatsword for instance. It was actually two handed for a large creature, but one handed for a huge creature and so on. That was well... complicated.

Letsee. Large and Greatsword. A Greatsword is a two-handed sword, and Large means it's two-handed for a Large creature.

Now, a Medium creature would need three hands - or an Exotic weapon proficiency... A Small creature can barely lift the damn thing, and a Diminutive creature is smaller than the Large Greatsword.

How it is troubling that a Huge creature, which is twice the size of a Large creature, can just single-handedly grab a Large size Greatsword...

...It seems more confusing what a greatsword is to begin with than anything to do with the system.

Now, in 3.5... A Large Greatsword is still usable by a Large creature, one of the few things not to change, but a Huge creature can't just use it and a Medium creature... I'm not sure.

And what's the problem about a Large creature's throwing dagger being thrown by a Medium creature? The thing about a thrown weapon is its aerodynamics, not who's throwing it.

Though weapon range should be based on size and strength. A weapon only helps (aerodynamic, mechanical advantage) or hinders (awkward) this. Very simple.

And weren't bows in 2e just limited by strength? Isn't that what matters, not size?

-Crissa