The Gaming Den Forum Index The Gaming Den
Welcome to the Gaming Den.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Google
 Search WWW   Search tgdmb.com 
Weapon Sizing
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> In My Humble Opinion...
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Psychic Robot
Prince


Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 4601

PostPosted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:05 pm    Post subject: Weapon Sizing Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

4e sort of does weapon sizes right. Sort of. The 3e method of “a small greatsword is a greatsword but smaller” irritated me because a greatsword for a gnome is probably just a longsword. (Though I might be wrong.) On the other hand, 4e doesn’t explain what happens when you have a nixie wielding a longsword because all the monster stats are made out of arbitrarium, meaning that the nixie does damage according to its combat role, not according to any sort of internal consistency.

Thus, there are two bothersome issues.

Overall, I prefer the 3e way, because it allows for actual rules—not just “make it up” rules—for what happens when a pixie grabs a sword or an ogre has a club. (Again, we’re talking real weapons, not “the monster does 2d6 + 5 damage because it’s a brute” weapons.) However, the 4e model has simplicity on its side (even though it hates small characters).

Are there any alternatives to weapon sizing that combine real rules with real simplicity?
_________________
Count Arioch wrote:
I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:
Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

You do not seem to do anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Korwin
Duke


Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 1886
Location: Linz / Austria

PostPosted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Weapon Sizing Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Psychic Robot wrote:

The 3e method of “a small greatsword is a greatsword but smaller” irritated me because a greatsword for a gnome is probably just a longsword.

I think thats the 3.5 rule.
3.0 was actually
Quote:
a greatsword for a gnome is just a longsword


[edit]
Clicked on your link. Sadly the spoken words dont match the subtitles...


Last edited by Korwin on Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
souran
Knight-Baron


Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Yeah,

I hate to tell you but D&D has been running around trying to figure this out for a long time.

You can either have the game with halfing fighting with daggers becasue they are as big as shortswords to them or you can have every weapon get be resizable to each size category.

The first way has obvious flaws of logic. The second way is a huge pain in the ass. The first way means that large creatures with two handed weapons and tiny creatures with any weapon are playing with weapons made of arbitrium.

The second way means that players will be constantly looking for a way to wield the fire titan's greatsword because its raw damage is big.

This is really as old as D&D or any fantasy wargame. Pick your poison, then go with it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sake
Knight


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 393

PostPosted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I prefer the the 3E method really . It's a bit silly, but it's simple and it you really need to lamp shade it, you can just say that medium sized creatures are the majority therefore they get to name the weapon sizes.

From what I've seen 4E's weapon size problems came from their attempt to make various weapon types play different which completely failed and just added a bunch of arbitrary weapon restriction rules to the game instead.

Which also ended up causing those fun problems like halfling barbarians can't actually use their powers and gnome wizards can't really use a staff for much of anything. But for the life of me, considering all the streamlining and gamist design stuff, I still can't understand why they kept the small size limitations in the first place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Psychic Robot
Prince


Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 4601

PostPosted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Re: That last bit.
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)


Overall, I guess the 3e method probably is better--it's less hassle and, if sizing were done right, it would be a lot simpler.
_________________
Count Arioch wrote:
I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:
Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

You do not seem to do anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ice9
Duke


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 1522

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Quote:
The second way is a huge pain in the ass.
You seem to be referring to the 3.5 way here, so how so? All you need is a single chart for how damage scales by size (i.e. 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, ...) and you're good to go. And it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the 3.0 way - even with swords, a greatsword is not shaped like a dagger - and other weapons make even less sense: how exactly does using a double-axe one-handed work again?

"But how will halflings get magic weapons?" The same way they get any other piece of magical equipment - either you let magic items resize, or people sell them / melt them / transfer the enchantment. We don't need "a halfling longsword is a human shortsword" for the same reason we don't need "halfling full plate is a human chain shirt".


Last edited by Ice9 on Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:45 am; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Psychic Robot
Prince


Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 4601

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I find the 3.5 way of weapon sizing to be irritating because the sizing is wonky; it doesn't follow a logical progression. However, the 3.0 sizing seems to be less stupid.

Also, when doing the 4e method, there are problems that arise from a logistical standpoint: if Small creatures can't use two-handed weapons, can Large creatures use two-handed weapons in one hand? And wouldn't a rapier in the hands of a large creature just be a giant slab of metal that wouldn't be rapier-like at all?
_________________
Count Arioch wrote:
I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:
Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

You do not seem to do anything.


Last edited by Psychic Robot on Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:33 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ice9
Duke


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 1522

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

You mean the damage scaling? It's a bit wonky on the low end, because of the lack of half-dice, but once you get to 2d6+, it's very clear - every two sizes up doubles the dice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TOZ
Duke


Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 1148

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Different weapon damages for different weapon sizes irritates me.

I know larger weapons should hurt more, but in a system where larger creatures already get Str bonuses, it feels like addressing the problem twice.

I'd like to see the minimum damage increase, not the maximum. Like a large longsword doing 2d4 instead of 1d8. 2-8 rather than 1-8. The dice combinations make that difficult tho.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
violence in the media
Duke


Joined: 06 Jan 2009
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Psychic Robot wrote:
I find the 3.5 way of weapon sizing to be irritating because the sizing is wonky; it doesn't follow a logical progression. However, the 3.0 sizing seems to be less stupid.

Also, when doing the 4e method, there are problems that arise from a logistical standpoint: if Small creatures can't use two-handed weapons, can Large creatures use two-handed weapons in one hand? And wouldn't a rapier in the hands of a large creature just be a giant slab of metal that wouldn't be rapier-like at all?


Well, you could always rule that certain weapon designs don't translate well on a massive scale. It isn't really unthematic to have big-ass creatures using trees, rocks, and stone axes as weapons. Maybe limit the types of weapons available to creatures of Huge+ size? On the flip side, I can't really see much of a damage potential difference between a tiny longsword and tiny greatsword either. Though revamping this would involve more work and run against your simplicity goal, so I'd probably just use the 3.0 rules.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CatharzGodfoot
King


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 5664
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Oh the one had, a giant swashbuckler is awesome. On the other, the physics don't work.

However, D&D physics usually don't work, and so IMO the combined rules of cool and simplicity should win out. The 3.0 object size system is the one to use, because I honestly don't care whether a rakshasa's sword grip should be difficult for a human to hold, or if a halfling's hands are large enough for human daggers to be balanced in them . Yeah, that leads to problems like the wizard using a 'large dagger', but that's the fault of how damage dice scale.
_________________
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France

Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.

-Josh Kablack
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ice9
Duke


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 1522

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I guess; the whole concept of a human using pixie / ogre weapons seems ass-backward to me, the same as trying to say "I can use this pixie fullplate as studded leather". Just make magic weapons auto-resize if you want them to be easily accessible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roy
Prince


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 2770

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

The difference being that a weapon that is large to a pixie is small to a human, but could still be used. A pixie greatsword would probably be a human small knife though so it wouldn't do much in combat. With armor it physically would not fit on your body with that size difference.
_________________
Draco_Argentum wrote:
Mister_Sinister wrote:
Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.


Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?


Juton wrote:
Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.


Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prak
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 16036

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

the problem with weapons is the handle. If the sword has a handle small enough for a pixie, a human cannot use it, it's like if you reversed the proportions on a scalpel, tiny handle, long blade.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Psychic Robot
Prince


Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 4601

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

That would be a humorous weapon, and you make a good point, Prak.
_________________
Count Arioch wrote:
I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:
Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

You do not seem to do anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CatharzGodfoot
King


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 5664
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Prak_Anima wrote:
the problem with weapons is the handle. If the sword has a handle small enough for a pixie, a human cannot use it, it's like if you reversed the proportions on a scalpel, tiny handle, long blade.


That's somewhat true, but not true enough that we should bother worrying about the size and shape of creatures' hands.

[Edit]Remember that a pixie greatsword is a human dagger. The problem is not that the handle is too short, it's that the handle is too thin.[/edit]
_________________
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France

Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.

-Josh Kablack


Last edited by CatharzGodfoot on Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:03 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Caedrus
Knight-Baron


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 731

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I actually much prefer the idea of having weapon sizing, such that a greatsword for a halfling is a small greatsword, etc.

Not big on the way the scaling actually works with respect to numbers (attack, damage, racial shoehorning, etc), but that happens in the "longsword = small greatsword" system too, and I like that I can give a halfling a goddamned polearm and you don't have to worry about all sorts of problems with using weapons that don't have some scaled double (A greatsword might go down to a longsword, but a whip is a whip). The old scaling system just doesn't make logical sense and causes all sorts of little problems down the line. For example, it makes no fucking sense that a pixie greatsword is a dagger. And you just have to outright *make shit up* to give a weapon to a giant.


Last edited by Caedrus on Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:52 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CatharzGodfoot
King


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 5664
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Caedrus wrote:
For example, it makes no fucking sense that a pixie greatsword is a dagger.
So are you saying that pixies shouldn't be allowed to use magical daggers?

Caedrus wrote:
And you just have to outright *make shit up* to give a weapon to a giant.
That's not the case in 3.0e, at least. In 3.0e, it works as follows: a two handed weapon is the same size category as its wielder, a one handed weapon is one size category smaller, and a light weapon is two size categories smaller. If you want a dagger made for a (huge) giant, you know that it's a medium-sized object. This is two size categories larger than a dagger made for a human bean, so you increase the base damage by two steps (1d4->1d6->1d8).

This really only only breaks down in one place. In 3e, a human can wield an ogre's morning star as a two-handed weapon that deals 2d6 damage, and it's a simple weapon.
_________________
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France

Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.

-Josh Kablack
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IGTN
Knight-Baron


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

A Large Dagger (3.0) is also a 2d6 weapon. In 3.5 it's called a Gargantuan Dagger.

Weapon sizing and object sizing in 3.0 weren't the same. A 3' blade would be a Medium weapon, even though it's longest dimension is in the Small range, and its other dimensions are much smaller, so it might actually be tiny (2e guideline: go one size category down for snakes and the like, and up for spheres). Also it's weight falls within the range for tiny creatures who weigh like flesh, and Iron Body multiplies your weight by 10, so it weighs like a Diminutive creature with Iron Body. They weren't actually clear on object sizing for weapons, which was all kinds of messed up.

A weapon was then Light if was smaller than you, one-handed if it was your size, and two-handed if it was one size bigger; you couldn't wield bigger weapons than that.
_________________
"No, you can't burn the inn down. It's made of solid fire."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ice9
Duke


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 1522

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Quote:
So are you saying that pixies shouldn't be allowed to use magical daggers?
I'm saying that they should use magic daggers the same way they use magic armor, or magic hats, or magic robes - by resizing them, or having them resize automatically. Again, "dagger = pixie greatsword" is no more necessary than "chain shirt = pixie fullplate".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CatharzGodfoot
King


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 5664
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

IGTN wrote:
A Large Dagger (3.0) is also a 2d6 weapon. In 3.5 it's called a Gargantuan Dagger.

Weapon sizing and object sizing in 3.0 weren't the same. A 3' blade would be a Medium weapon, even though it's longest dimension is in the Small range, and its other dimensions are much smaller, so it might actually be tiny (2e guideline: go one size category down for snakes and the like, and up for spheres). Also it's weight falls within the range for tiny creatures who weigh like flesh, and Iron Body multiplies your weight by 10, so it weighs like a Diminutive creature with Iron Body. They weren't actually clear on object sizing for weapons, which was all kinds of messed up.

A weapon was then Light if was smaller than you, one-handed if it was your size, and two-handed if it was one size bigger; you couldn't wield bigger weapons than that.


Yeah, the weapon size vs. object size thing is confusing. As you may have noticed, I mistakenly said that a dagger made for a human is a tiny object, when it's actually a "fine" object. And the medium sized dagger is a small object... They really should have just used the size of the object rather than the size of the object plus one.

At any rate, that's not a problem with letting characters wield weapons made for creatures of different sizes. It's a problem with adding extra confusing and nonsensical layers of terminology.


Ice9 wrote:
Quote:
So are you saying that pixies shouldn't be allowed to use magical daggers?
I'm saying that they should use magic daggers the same way they use magic armor, or magic hats, or magic robes - by resizing them, or having them resize automatically. Again, "dagger = pixie greatsword" is no more necessary than "chain shirt = pixie fullplate".

Here's the thing. In my world, having a pixie thief sneak up behind an orc guard, steal his dagger, and stab him in the back is cool. Even if the dagger isn't magical. Why would you ever want to give up that option?
_________________
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France

Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.

-Josh Kablack


Last edited by CatharzGodfoot on Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NativeJovian
Journeyman


Joined: 22 Aug 2009
Posts: 128

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

CatharzGodfoot wrote:
Here's the thing. In my world, having a pixie thief sneak up behind an orc guard, steal his dagger, and stab him in the back is cool. Even if the dagger isn't magical. Why would you ever want to give up that option?

There's no reason they can't do that; they just take a penalty for using an inappropriately sized weapon. Here are the rules for that. If a Tiny pixie steals a Medium orc's dagger (a light weapon), then the pixie uses it as two-handed weapon with a -4 penalty for being two sizes off. Each size difference imparts a cumulative -2 penalty and changes it by one category (light -> one-handed -> two-handed); if it gets bigger than "two-handed" or smaller than "light" you can't use it. So a pixie can use an orc's dagger, but not an orc's battleaxe, which seems legitimate to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Caedrus
Knight-Baron


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 731

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

Ice9 wrote:
Quote:
So are you saying that pixies shouldn't be allowed to use magical daggers?
I'm saying that they should use magic daggers the same way they use magic armor, or magic hats, or magic robes - by resizing them, or having them resize automatically. Again, "dagger = pixie greatsword" is no more necessary than "chain shirt = pixie fullplate".

Here's the thing. In my world, having a pixie thief sneak up behind an orc guard, steal his dagger, and stab him in the back is cool. Even if the dagger isn't magical. Why would you ever want to give up that option?


And you imagine this option is more practical for a 3.0 pixie rogue than a 3.5 one why, exactly?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CatharzGodfoot
King


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 5664
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Caedrus wrote:
CatharzGodfoot wrote:

Ice9 wrote:
Quote:
So are you saying that pixies shouldn't be allowed to use magical daggers?
I'm saying that they should use magic daggers the same way they use magic armor, or magic hats, or magic robes - by resizing them, or having them resize automatically. Again, "dagger = pixie greatsword" is no more necessary than "chain shirt = pixie fullplate".

Here's the thing. In my world, having a pixie thief sneak up behind an orc guard, steal his dagger, and stab him in the back is cool. Even if the dagger isn't magical. Why would you ever want to give up that option?


And you imagine this option is more practical for a 3.0 pixie rogue than a 3.5 one why, exactly?


Well, 3.5e appears to have this nice little rule:
Quote:
Inappropriately Sized Weapons
A creature can’t make optimum use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A cumulative -2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn’t proficient with the weapon a -4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

So a pixie wielding a human dagger (as a two-handed weapon) takes a -4 penalty to attacks.
_________________
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France

Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.

-Josh Kablack
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FrankTrollman
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 26891

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Caedrus wrote:
And you imagine this option is more practical for a 3.0 pixie rogue than a 3.5 one why, exactly?


I really don't see how you can construe the difference between taking a penalty and not taking a penalty as being a difference in degrees of practicality.

-Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> In My Humble Opinion... All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group