Weapons and sizes for DDN

To get a simply table of weapons and who can wield them and in what way, I think that the best way is 3.0E(not 3.5) solution with sizes.

So for starters weapon sizes would be:

tiny,
small,
medium,
large,
huge,

small creatures, can wield tiny weapons as finesse, small as one handed and medium as two handed,

medium creatures, can wield tiny and small weapons as finesse, medium as one handed and large as two handed,

large creatures, can wield tiny, small and medium weapons as finesse, large as one handed and huge as two handed,

some examples:

tiny; dagger(d4), hand crossbow(d6), shuriken(d3), etc.
small; shortsword(d6), light crossbow(d8), handaxe(d6),
medium; longsword(d8), heavycrossbow(d10), shortbow(d8), javelin(d6), battleaxe(d8), etc.
large; greatsword(1d10), greatcrossbow(1d12), longbow(d10), longspear(1d8), etc
huge; fullblade(2d6), portable ballista(2d8), huge club(1d12), etc

of course some weapons could be finessable outside these rules, and there can be option that if you use twohanded grip on weapon equal size of you(melee only) you can increase damage die by one category.
What about Greatswords built for halflings? Would they be Medium weapons? A Greatsword (or broadsword, or Buster Sword....) is built different from a longsword, so shouldn't have the same stats. I'm not happy with a system that says "because something is bigger it is better at killing you," especially when HP are supposed to represent your ability to avoid direct hits. I would prefer something like this:

Each weapon is constructed in a size. the damage for each weapon is static, regardless of size (IE a 'small' longsword is just as deadly as a 'large' longsword). If a character has a strength of 20 they may use weapons one size catagory larger without penalty. If a character has a dexterity of 20 they may use weapons one size catagory smaller without penalty. Monster Trait: Giant Strength: Weapons gain an increased damage die if they are 'large' weapons or larger.

This would let Halflings use weapons built for them (a longspear built for someone only 4 feet tall still functions like a longspear), and it would let large monsters deal extra damage with their big weapons. The pitfall to this comes with reach rules and how far a 'small' spear would reach. However, that could be delt with in Character Size rules rather than Weapon Size rules.
The best solution for the question of weapon versus size has always been and will continue to be that weapons for creatures of any size are absolutely identical except for weight. In other words, small races aren't stupid and are perfectly capable of making weapons appropriately sized for themselves, just as they were smart enough to do in 3.5. As for the oft-asked question of "Shoudn't small weapons do less damage because they're smaller?", the answer is "No.", and I will copy-paste an explanation that I presented in another thread:

To explain, we need to go over a couple of basic premises first:

1) Smaller creatures aren't inherently more stupid than medium creatures, so they're perfectly capable of creating their own weapons perfectly sized for themselves rather than needing to rely on larger creatures to make weapons that they then need to adapt to. In other words, a Human can make themselves a longsword appropriately proportionately sized for a Human, and a Halfling can make themselves a longsword smaller than that of the Human's that is appropriately proportionately sized for a Halfling.

Now, the immediate response to this is typically "Well, sure, but then a Halfling's Longsword is the exact same thing as a Human's Shortsword", but that's not the case. Even two weapons of similar size and weight need to be balanced differently if they're going to be used in two completely different ways by two creatures so different in size, and the hilt sizes at least will differ greatly. Furthermore, if we go with the premise that any small-size weapon can be adequately modeled by a step-down version of the medium-size weapon, we run into the issue that many medium-size weapon don't have any step-down version. For example, there is no step down for a Dagger or a Shortbow or a Scythe.

So, following this logic so far, what we must end up with it something like what 3.5 had, where Halflings can and do make their own smaller versions of every weapon that Humans can and do make. Perfectly reasonable.

B) Now, let's go somewhere completely unrelated and talk about attack bonuses and damage bonuses in general. If you saw a feature that said "Due to your superior accuracy and precision, you get a +2 bonus to X", would you have any idea whether that X was attack or damage? No, you wouldn't. It is a simple matter of fact that the vast majority of instances of such a bonus can be reasonably represented either way. These have even sometimes changed from edition to edition, for example like how Weapon Focus created an attack bonus in 3E but a damage bonus in 4E. Another example from 4E is two races, the Dragonborn and the Gnoll, that have thematically practically identical features (they fight more furiously when bloodied) but the former's is modeled with an attack bonus and the latter's with a damage bonus for mechanical variety.

The great thing about a system as flexible as D&D is supposed to be in that a concept can often be mechanically translated in multiple ways, and the fact that many attack or damage bonuses can often be modeled just fine the other way is a testament to that.

If anything is going to cause a hangup for anybody as I continue to explain, this is going to be it.

#) Stepping back to concerns of size, let's look at the inherent mechanics for size, completely independent of race, present in different editions of D&D. The most detailed and "realistic" was probably 3.5, where there were many, many mechanical implications of being small size that we didn't see afterward in 4E and that we don't see yet in Next. For example, small characters in 3.5 got a size bonus to AC. Logically, this makes some sense, as it is more difficult to hit something that's smaller because you have a smaller target to aim for.

Of course, this is only part of that story. If the AC bonus were the only thing that they got, then two Halfling would have a harder time hitting one another than two Humans do, and that just makes no sense. Therefore, small size creatures also got a bonus to attack rolls due to the advantage granted by their perspective. The entire size chart followed suit. Medium was the default "zero" size, and every size smaller got an identical bonus to AC and attack, and every size larger got an identical penalty to AC and attack. If we wanted to most realistically model the effects of size differences, this would be a perfectly internally consistent way to do so.

Now, let's combine all of the above premises, and the true implications of my proposal become clear. Small creatures do create their own smaller versions of the same weapon that medium size creatures create. However, while these weapons may be smaller, small creatures also have a perspective advantage over larger creatures. Where in the past this perspective advantage has been modeled as a bonus on attack rolls, we can instead now model it as a bonus on damage rolls. If the weapons of a small creature do less damage because they're small but then do more damage due to perspective difference, then these things cancel each other out, and we end up with small-size weapons that are physically smaller than their medium-size counterparts but that, when wielded by a small-size character, still do the exact same die damage as their medium-size counterparts. In other words, despite the fact that we are dealing with differently sized weapons (NOT a Halfling with a two-handed sword twice his size), they can still reasonably be modeled as mechanically identical in terms of everything but their weight, removing a layer of complexity and pigeon-holing from the game.

For maximum realism, add in rules for what penalties are taken when wielding a weapon normally sized for another creature, for example a Human taking a -2 penalty to attack for attempting to wield a Halfling's Greatsword as a Longsword or a Halfling taking a -2 penalty to attack for attempting to weld a Human's Shortbow as a Longbow.

If you've been following closely, then you may be saying to yourself that, following this logic, larger creatures, despite wielding larger weapons, would also be dealing the exact same damage with those weapons that medium creatures would with their versions of them. That is also correct. Should larger creatures do more damage than medium creatures? Probably. Must that damage be as a result of weapon damage dice? No, they don't need to be. The vastly superior strength of such larger creatures should give their damage rolls enough of a static modifier to model this increased damage despite rolling only normal damage dice.

tl;dr, Weapon mechanics across size categories can be made more identical by also taking into account the size of a weapon's intended wielder and not just taking into account the size of a weapon itself.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
So, a tiny little pixie, wielding a pixie-sized greatsword, does d12 slashing damage?

Just want to make sure this is your point...
Be sure to have all of the crappy, boring weapons I don't care about using to all have the d6, leaving the other dice for the good, interesting weapons.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So, a tiny little pixie, wielding a pixie-sized greatsword, does d12 slashing damage?
Just want to make sure this is your point...

No, a tiny little pixie, wielding a pixie-sized great-sword with which it is proficient, does 1d12-5 damage due to its atrocious Strength. Considering that the average damage (assuming a total minimum damage of 1, as has been the rule in some previous editions) of 1d12-5 is 2.75, which is about what an untrained Human of average strength can do with a dagger, that sounds perfectly believable to me, considering that a Human dagger and a Pixie great-sword are probably about the same size. Really, Strength difference due to size can handle expected damage differences such as these well enough that further penalizing weapon damage dice themselves is simply unnecessary.

EDIT: By the way, if we remove the "minimum damage of 1" assumption and allow the attacks to do 0 damage, then the average damage of 1d12-5 drops even lower to 2.33.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I'm pretty sure that if I hit someone with a warhammer the size of a salt shaker, even if it was balanced and fitted for me, it would have a different base damage than if I hit someone with a warhammer the size of a halfling.
My two copper.
Why is it assumed that a pixie will have a 0-1 strength score?
Because of basically every Disney movie ever where a small fluttery thing gets flattened by miscellaneous common objects.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I'm pretty sure that if I hit someone with a warhammer the size of a salt shaker, even if it was balanced and fitted for me, it would have a different base damage than if I hit someone with a warhammer the size of a halfling.

Why should it? Why can't the simple difference in your Strength scores due to size be enough to cover that? If something is big enough to wield a warhammer the size of a Halfling, then it will have a high enough Strength score that the resulting damage will be significantly higher than that of the pixie with the salt shaker and laughable Strength score. It is important to realize here that it is not just the base damage die here that matters to what the character ends up experiencing as damage. As long as the resulting possible damage outputs are believable enough, then the specific factors going into them become significantly less important.

Could we vary weapon damage dice by size? Absolutely. But do we need to for damage outputs to do what they're expected to do? Nope. Differences in Strength of differently sized creatures can and will ensure that a Human is going to take a hell of a lot more damage from a Storm Giant's Ase than from a Pixie's axe. So, as we don't need to vary weapon damage dice by size and there are other very good reasons not to anyway (primarily related to racial pigeonholing), the logical conclusion is that we not.

Weapons of different sizes differ only by weight, characters can only wield weapons one step removed from their own size but with disadvantage on attack, and that's it. Elgant simplicity, and we can all move on to the parts of damage that actually matter.

Why is it assumed that a pixie will have a 0-1 strength score?

Because it will. If it has anything higher, then magic is in play, and once magic is in play, then why shouldn't the Pixie be able to do the same damage with the salt-shaker-warhammer as the giant does with the halfling-warhammer? It's magic. It can do whatever it wants.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Why does strength seem to be the only one tied to size?
Having a "small" longsword, that is mechanically identical to short sword, just put apart by the name is the same as judging that short sword for human is the same as longsword for halfling.

having various sizes of the same weapon is over complicating and serving nothing except pissing players out:

P: "I found a new short sword. I think it's masterwork so I'll use it with my rogue"
DM: "that is not a short sword, its "small longsword", but you can use it as a short sword with a penalty"
P: "Go f... yourself"

The same could be said the other way around. My Halfling wants to use a big sword, but can't because 'heavy' weapons only come in one size. Also, as has been stated, a 'short sword' is different than a small 'long sword'. Giving each weapon a seperate 'size' stat is just as complicated when dealing with Large PC's or size changing spells. Bigger weapons dealing more damage is counter-intuitive when HP are an abstraction.

What we are asking for is a system that lets PC's use the weapons they want without penalty and does not punish small characters for being small. Furthermore, in a simple game you can ignore weapon sizes without any ill effects.

All 3 of the physical scores should change with size. Str/Con should go up and Dex should go up. That is the historical reason for small creatures boost in AC.
Also, as has been stated, a 'short sword' is different than a small 'long sword'.

To what extent? How is it different, exactly? Explain the differences (significant enough to warrant additional rules).

The same could be said the other way around. My Halfling wants to use a big sword, but can't because 'heavy' weapons only come in one size. Also, as has been stated, a 'short sword' is different than a small 'long sword'. Giving each weapon a seperate 'size' stat is just as complicated when dealing with Large PC's or size changing spells. Bigger weapons dealing more damage is counter-intuitive when HP are an abstraction.

What we are asking for is a system that lets PC's use the weapons they want without penalty and does not punish small characters for being small. Furthermore, in a simple game you can ignore weapon sizes without any ill effects.

All 3 of the physical scores should change with size. Str/Con should go up and Dex should go up. That is the historical reason for small creatures boost in AC.



small character should be penalized for being small, as they are usually rewarded in some boost to skills and/or AC.

also bigger and longer weapons deal more damage. It's physics.

also difference in "shortsword" and "small longsword" is only in balance point as one handed weapons have it closer to the grip then two handed weapons.

also it is very simple and intuitive to say:
you can wield a weapon of your size in one hand,
you can wield a weapon smaller than your size as finesse weapon,
you can wield a weapon of one size larger than you with two hands,
some weapons can be exception to this rules,


‘Long sword’ and ‘short sword’ are terrible examples, to be sure, considering most of the folks who know about weapons don’t even want them to be separate. ‘Great sword’ and ‘dagger’ might be a better comparison. However, this discussion naturally leads to what weapons are, what they do and how they are used. I advocate that ‘short swords’ work best when piercing, ‘long swords’ get extra bashing damage when used two-handed, great swords provide reach-like opportunity attacks and daggers not only deal piercing damage but have much higher crit damage by virtue of how these weapons are used. I don’t want the ‘long sword’ to be a ‘medium sized ‘sword’’, because I want weapon choice to mean something. Though I don’t expect any of that to be in the core rules, I do expect a ‘weapons module’ where some of these options are explored.


I’m also not saying that the previous system is ‘bad’, it worked fine in 3.x and the Arms and Equipment Guide is a great book in that edition. However, that style of weapons design (and race design) was highly restrictive. Halflings should make fine monks/fighters, Dwarves should make fine wizards. Saying Halflings should deal less damage with all weapons is restrictive and poor design. Saying ‘all small and medium weapons are the same because that’s what PC’s play’ is also a poor design.

Avoided the question completely, I see...

Lets get blunt and specific:

Say, I am a human rogue. I grab my personal (human-sized) shortsword and hack at an orc.

Now say I'm that same rogue. I find a "halfling longsword". I want to use it to hack at an orc.

What's the difference between these two situations? Practically, mechanically or otherwise?

What can I say? I must be a born politician…


So the ‘short sword’ and the ‘long sword’ don’t have enough mechanical difference to be different weapons. So we call it a ‘sword’ and let the size carry the rest of the mechanical burden. A ‘small’ sword deals 1d6 damage, a ‘medium’ sword deals 1d8, ect. Now there is no difference. Your Human uses the same size weapon in both cases.


Now in a different setup your Human picks up a (medium) short sword. He uses it and deals 1d6 piercing damage. Later he picks up a (small) long sword. It is built with a different grip than his hand can comfortably use because the hilt is longer (for two small hands, not one medium hand) than his previous sword and the balance point is further down the blade. However, because he is both proficient with long swords and has a high Dex score he can take advantage of the extra slashing potential from the construction of the weapon and when he swings it he deals 1d8 slashing damage (despite the weapon being ‘short’ for him).


However, Long swords don’t have a ‘finesse’ tag on them. That means he will have to use his Str for both the attack and damage rolls, despite needing a high Dex to even use the weapon efficiently. So unless he has high scores in both it might be sub-optimal to use a weapon too small for him.

Hmmm... So your solution is to make the weapon categorization system so complex, nuanced and convoluted that it causes migraines?

Not sure how that can be a path worth pursuing.
It is built with a different grip than his hand can comfortably use because the hilt is longer (for two small hands, not one medium hand) than his previous sword and the balance point is further down the blade.

Also, bwahaha. Bolded part makes my giggle. Had to point this out specifically..

So the halfling "longsword" has a "longer" hilt because its built for 2 halfling hands... even though those halfling hands are considerably smaller than a human's hand. So really, how much different in length is it? Really? Enough to warrant all these painful rules?

If both weapons are in the 2-3 foot length category, and roughly the same weight, how is it justifiable to bring in so much unnecessary complexity? They are functionally the same weapon, used differently by different creatures.


Oh, and my overwhelming wrongness is enveloped by your wit and charm.


I’m advocating something different than you, thus, it must not only be wrong, but foolish to even consider.


I’ll also admit that anything that happens at your table is D&D cannon, because you and yours are the only ones that matter.


Glad we had this chat.


- Your wrongness in and of itself has nothing to do with any wit or charm I may or may not possess.

- I'm just advocating playable rules.

- Whatever happens at my table, it will be playable. If rules, as needlessly complex and restrictive as you present, exist in the finished game product, rest assured they will not reach my table. Cannon or not.

- I didn't realize we were done chatting. I'm still waiting to hear how you justify the differences in my example...
having various sizes of the same weapon is over complicating and serving nothing except pissing players out:

Absolutely untrue. Having various sizes of the same weapon is the least complicated way of dealing with weapon size, at least certainly when the mechanical differences between weapons of differing sizes are non-existant other than weight.

Furthermore, various sizes of the same weapon is the most logical option as soon as you realize that, if differently-sized races are not inherently any less intelligent than medium ones, it only makes sense that they would make all varieties of weapons appropriately sized for themselves (and don't even give me that "a Halfling's longbow is the same as a Human's shortbow" crap unless you can show me where I can find the Halfling's shortbow).

Finally, creating a system where weapons of different sizes are treated as identical by their appropriate wielders ensures that we get rid of small size races being pigeon-holed away from most weapon-using classes and roles, expanding the viable playable options available in the game.

P: "I found a new short sword. I think it's masterwork so I'll use it with my rogue"
DM: "that is not a short sword, its "small longsword", but you can use it as a short sword with a penalty"
P: "Go f... yourself"

I fail to see the problem as long as there's somebody in the party that actually wants the weapon. If the DM is handing out treasure not applicable to anybody to the party to begin with, that's a problem no matter how weapon sizes are handled.
Also, don't most DMs have magical gear re-size to fit their owner anyway? If not, then that's faaar from the only problem that the group will be having.

What we are asking for is a system that lets PC's use the weapons they want without penalty and does not punish small characters for being small. Furthermore, in a simple game you can ignore weapon sizes without any ill effects.

Yes, exactly!

How is it different, exactly? Explain the differences (significant enough to warrant additional rules).

Surely you mean fewer rules. But the difference, as I went over in the very long explanation at the beginning of the thread, is two-fold. First is the weapon's construction, such as the hilt size and balancing of the physical weapon, but perhaps more significantly is the wielder themselves. Again, think of that small size bonus to attack canceling out the penalty for lower weapon size. If you did not read my long explanation of how this makes perfect sense, I implore you to go back and do so.

small character should be penalized for being small

Absolutely not. All that does is lead to imbalance and racial pigeon-holing. We do not need that in this game. Take it to an optional module or something, but do not make it a requirement that everybody has to deal with.

also bigger and longer weapons deal more damage. It's physics.

And bigger combatants are less accurate. That's also physics, and I explain its significant relevant early in the thread.

So your solution is to make the weapon categorization system so complex, nuanced and convoluted that it causes migraines?

I have to admit, I have no idea from reading Phawksin's post what in the world they're talking about, but complexity is absolutely not required to achieve the end goal. Again, my solution is the simplest of all:
No different at all between weapons of different sizes other than weight. Maybe take disadvantage for wielding a weapon one size category removed from appropriate, any more than that unusable. Done. How is anything about this complex or unplayable?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
But the difference, as I went over in the very long explanation at the beginning of the thread, is two-fold. First is the weapon's construction, such as the hilt size and balancing of the physical weapon, but perhaps more significantly is the wielder themselves.

If you want to stick to something like a sword, I could almost see a point. Hilt to blade proportions and such. Almost.

But then we get to the spear. Where is the hilt to be found now? How is a goblin "longspear" practically different from a human-sized standard spear? How about hammers? Those don't have hilts either. They are sticks with weighty ends. Or axes of varying sizes?

And then you get even more ridiculous if you look to various, different races of the same general size. Why wouldn't an orc scimitar be drastically differently than, say, an elven one? Do we start playing with penalties and modifiers amongst these disparate styles of weapon construction?

Where does it end?

If you want to stick to something like a sword, I could almost see a point. Hilt to blade proportions and such. Almost.

But then we get to the spear. Where is the hilt to be found now? How is a goblin "longspear" practically different from a human-sized standard spear? How about hammers? Those don't have hilts either. They are sticks with weighty ends. Or axes of varying sizes?

And then you get even more ridiculous if you look to various, different races of the same general size. Why wouldn't an orc scimitar be drastically differently than, say, an elven one? Do we start playing with penalties and modifiers amongst these disparate styles of weapon construction?

Where does it end?

. . . And you're accusing other people of wanting to get into overly complex minutia with their weapon size rules?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
No. I'm taking your point to its logical conclusion. You know, to show how impractical this whole line of reasoning is.
No. I'm taking your point to its logical conclusion.

But you're not. The logical conclusion is very simple, as I've shown over and over.
Let's hold on a second. Can you explain in detail exactly what you think my point is? Because it seems like your hangup is with one little comment about hilt size that is almost completely irrelevant to the actual point.

EDIT: To be clear, anything about a character wielding an inappropriately sized weapon is but an afterthought, a situation for which rules only exist out of minimal necessity. Weapon size rules should not be built around such an unlikely consideration. Rather, it is such a consideration that should be formed to fit the weapon size rules.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
@Crimson_Concerto

So you want to say that a halfling wielding a "small longsword" deals the same damage as a human with "medium/normal longsword"?
Also, as has been stated, a 'short sword' is different than a small 'long sword'.

To what extent? How is it different, exactly? Explain the differences (significant enough to warrant additional rules).




I'll explain this.  Did you know that a "short sword" and a "long sword" differ by more than just their length?  It's true.  They are balanced very differently.  A short sword has a thin, light blade with the majority of its weight in the hilt.  This allows the weilder to make quick thrusts and parries, but doesn't gain much from swinging it, as there's little torque.  A long sword, on the other hand, has a light hilt and a (relatively) heavy blade, with the majoirty of its weight closer to the tip.  The weilder can still parry and thrust, but with less ease, however, more benefit is derived from swinging it as it's designed to increase angular momentum.
Simply put, you (and/or anyone else arguing a similar point) contend that there is a fundamental difference between a human-sized shortsword and a halfling longsword. Enough to prevent them from being interchangeable for the purposes of game modularity.

To defend that opinion, you began explaining how a halfling longword is constructed (and used) differently. That the hilt is somehow different enough to throw off a human wanting to use it comparably as a "shortsword".

Clearly I see it differently. I contend the two weapons are similar enough in length and weight as to be one in the same when categorized and placed on a weapon chart for the purposes of this game.

I then asked how your logic would be applied to other weapon groups, like spears, axes and hammers. None of which have "hilts". Then I took it one step further by asking how you would compare different racial styles and construction methods. After all, an orc's hand is far meatier and bulkier than that of an an elf. Enough that an orcish scimitar is going to be different than that of a scimitar constructed by (and for) elves.

How is this not a fair extrapolation?
Also, as has been stated, a 'short sword' is different than a small 'long sword'.

To what extent? How is it different, exactly? Explain the differences (significant enough to warrant additional rules).



I'll explain this.  Did you know that a "short sword" and a "long sword" differ by more than just their length?  It's true.  They are balanced very differently.  A short sword has a thin, light blade with the majority of its weight in the hilt.  This allows the weilder to make quick thrusts and parries, but doesn't gain much from swinging it, as there's little torque.  A long sword, on the other hand, has a light hilt and a (relatively) heavy blade, with the majoirty of its weight closer to the tip.  The weilder can still parry and thrust, but with less ease, however, more benefit is derived from swinging it as it's designed to increase angular momentum.

Yet, you completely failed to address my request. Let me reiterate:

Explain the differences (significant enough to warrant additional rules).

Are you saying shortswords offer a parry bonus? Because that's not a game mechanic currently. So clearly the differences are no more than "descriptive and stylistic" at best. I still see no practical *rules* reasons to differentiate the two.

I'll wait...

[Edit: Also, you mean the "shortsword" and "longsword", as you see them in your world/history? Not the "shortsword or "longsword" of D&D. Just to be clear...]
So you want to say that a halfling wielding a "small longsword" deals the same damage as a human with "medium/normal longsword"?

Sure, you could put it like that, yes. The only major concession that needs to be made their is the Halfling's Strength score. The Halfling's Strength is not penalized, despite a significant size difference, because of concerns of balance and pigeon-holing. This is a necessity, though, because the Halfling is a PC race. The same won't necessarily and probably shouldn't apply to NPCs and other creatures.

Simply put, you (and/or anyone else arguing a similar point) contend that there is a fundamental difference between a human-sized shortsword and a halfling longsword. Enough to prevent them from being interchangeable for the purposes of game modularity.

The most significant difference is simple: The wielder. Failing to take the wielder into account is what's leading to the confusion.

To defend that opinion, you began explaining how a halfling longword is constructed (and used) differently.

It was my error to lead that comment with that. I assumed that you had read the long explanation that I provided earlier in the thread and that you already understood the basic premise of my posion. If you did, though, then you would know that such a concern is and should be merely an afterthought.

I then asked how your logic would be applied to other weapon groups, like spears, axes and hammers. None of which have "hilts".

As that is not anything close to the primary concern of my argument, it really doesn't matter.

How is this not a fair extrapolation?

Because it's focusing on a small, relatively irrelevant part of my argument. I know I just said that three times, but I really want to drive the point home that it's not important to my point. Let's say that you're right and hilt size isn't worth worrying about. Okay, whatever. I don't care, and my argument, for all relevant purposes, remains perfectly intact. I use it as further justification because I can, but if you don't agree and don't want me to, then I don't need to.

What you're doing is taking a very traditional approach to the question of weapon size, an approach that results in unnecessary penalties and pigeon-holing. What I'm doing is approaching the question from another angle entirely, one that D&D has not traditionally used, one that takes the size concerns of the wielder and ties it direct to the weapon rules themselves rather than to the general size rules. You're going to have to be open-minded and try to look at the question from a different angle if you're going to understand my argument. Getting caught up on a minor, irrelevant afterthought is not going to help.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
No. My point has everything to do with everything. I'll show you...

The most significant difference is simple: The wielder. Failing to take the wielder into account is what's leading to the confusion.

Fine. So why wouldn't a human rogue, picking up a halfling longsword, be able to wield it as a shortsword? It is of the same general length and weight. To the human, it is a shortsword, because he's the wielder.

Also, as has been stated, a 'short sword' is different than a small 'long sword'.

To what extent? How is it different, exactly? Explain the differences (significant enough to warrant additional rules).




I'll explain this.  Did you know that a "short sword" and a "long sword" differ by more than just their length?  It's true.  They are balanced very differently.  A short sword has a thin, light blade with the majority of its weight in the hilt.  This allows the weilder to make quick thrusts and parries, but doesn't gain much from swinging it, as there's little torque.  A long sword, on the other hand, has a light hilt and a (relatively) heavy blade, with the majoirty of its weight closer to the tip.  The weilder can still parry and thrust, but with less ease, however, more benefit is derived from swinging it as it's designed to increase angular momentum.



Ok, this is dead wrong.

A longsword 4,5 ft long (greatsword maybe in D&D terms) has a balance point somewhere 1-4 inches from crossguard.
a shortsword/sidesword/arming sword, about 3 ft long has a balance point around 1-2 in from crossguard.

More preposterously:

The human looks at a human shortsword and a halfling longsword lying side by side. He notices they are practically identical in every way (length, weight, etc.). One he is somehow good at using (finesseable) and deals d6. The other, despite such similarities, is arbitrarily more awkward to wield (for being a martial weapon now) but somehow does d8 damage.

Yet they are practically, in all ways, the same when placed next to each other on a table. What's the point?
Also, as has been stated, a 'short sword' is different than a small 'long sword'.

To what extent? How is it different, exactly? Explain the differences (significant enough to warrant additional rules).




I'll explain this.  Did you know that a "short sword" and a "long sword" differ by more than just their length?  It's true.  They are balanced very differently.  A short sword has a thin, light blade with the majority of its weight in the hilt.  This allows the weilder to make quick thrusts and parries, but doesn't gain much from swinging it, as there's little torque.  A long sword, on the other hand, has a light hilt and a (relatively) heavy blade, with the majoirty of its weight closer to the tip.  The weilder can still parry and thrust, but with less ease, however, more benefit is derived from swinging it as it's designed to increase angular momentum.



Ok, this is dead wrong.

A longsword 4,5 ft long (greatsword maybe in D&D terms) has a balance point somewhere 1-4 inches from crossguard.
a shortsword/sidesword/arming sword, about 3 ft long has a balance point around 1-2 in from crossguard.


Which really, at the end of the day, doesn't matter either way. I want my longsword to look and feel differently than the narrow version he proposes. It's my longsword. Not all longswords are identical. Neither in length, weight, balance, or looks.

Or better yet, why is an elven longsword the same as an orc longsword? That's just ridiculous.

So why wouldn't a human rogue, picking up a halfling longsword, be able to wield it as a shortsword?

Because rules for wielding weapons of inappropriate size are an afterthought, a side note, a corner case. The weapon size rules shouldn't be built around them because nobody's ever going to use them. They only exist as a minor aside to satisfy the question for those who have it, so making them as simulationist as possible is unnecessary. "You take disadvantage" or something similar is all that somebody needs to know to go "Ah, a penalty, as expected" and move on to never use the rule.

It is of the same general length and weight. To the human, it is a shortsword, because he's the wielder.

If you want complicate the rules for wielding weapons of a different size, then that's your prerogative, but then you can't sit their and berate other people for perceived delving into unnecessary complications. Could you complicate the rules? Sure. Instead of just disadvantage, maybe the damage die also drops one size for a weapon one size smaller and increases by one size for a weapon one size larger. Or maybe the weapon die just drops by a size for one size smaller and it's only a larger version that includes disadvantage, maybe even with the further stipulation that attacks made with it can't gain advantage to offset the disadvantage. All are viable answers to the question of what happened when creatures wield inappropriately sized weapons. I just take the approach that, if nobody's going to use those rules (which they shoudn't and won't), then why bother making them so complicated?

Yet they are practically, in all ways, the same when placed next to each other on a table. What's the point?

Ask the DM, who's clearly just being a dick? Alternatively, it's trivial to add: "For weapons sized for larger or smaller creatures but that could be considered similar to another sort of weapon that a character could normally wield, a DM may decide to treat the inappropriately sized weapon as a different appropriately sized weapon. For example, a Halfling could be allowed to treat a Human's shortsword as a longsword or a Human could be allowed to treat a Halfling's longbow as a shortbow." If you want to make it that complicated, then fine. These corner case alternative rules, though, do not alter for better or for worse the merit of the original idea.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
small creatures, can wield tiny weapons as finesse, small as one handed and medium as two handed,

medium creatures, can wield tiny and small weapons as finesse, medium as one handed and large as two handed,

large creatures, can wield tiny, small and medium weapons as finesse, large as one handed and huge as two handed,

Simple and straight-forward.  I like it.  I would probably say that a weapon more than two size categories smaller than you is unusable, though - the mental image of an ogre holding a tiny dagger is a little bit further than I think is reasonable.

The metagame is not the game.

Simple and straight-forward.

And full of de facto penalties and pigeon-holing.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
But you are inventing an argument to counter.

Because I contend there is no "halfling longsword" in the first place. Halflings would simply wield the shortsword (as found on the weapon table) as a human would wield a longsword. For the purposes of style, proportions, feel, etc. But not by different rules. Unnecessary rules.

The fact that you've invented racial weapon sizes/types is where the absurd complications began. It opens a can of bloat in the rules that need not be there in the first place.

A shortsword is a shortword. Doesn't matter who uses it. It is empirically a sword, with a blade length within a certain range (a parameter of "longer than a dagger, shorter than a longsword"), weighing around 3 pounds or so, that does d6 damage. Done.
But you are inventing an argument to counter.

No, it just looks that way because you're having trouble stepping out of the box of the way traditional weapon size rules have traditionally been looked at. Not one thing you've said has shown me you've tried looking at it the another way around.

But you are inventing an argument to counter.
Because I contend there is no "halfling longsword" in the first place.

That would be nonsensical. Are you arguing that smaller races are too stupid to make their own weapons appropriate sized for themselves, as has been the case in some previous editions? Oh, sure, Humans are smart enough to make longbows and shortbows, but Halflings are too stupid to make more than one size of bow for themselves. No, if anything strains believability, it's that.

The fact that you've invented racial weapon sizes/types is where the absurd complications began. It opens a can of bloat in the rules that need not be there in the first place.

What's absurd is that you think there's anything complicated about "Weapons made for creatures of different sizes are treated exactly the same when wielded by appropriately sized creatures except for weight.".

What you're proposing isn't any simpler. It's just simple in a different way, a way that results in de facto penalties and pigeon-holing for smaller creatures while what I'm proposing does not.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Sign In to post comments