PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Weapon Size inconsistency



Choco
2010-01-11, 02:13 PM
This has been bugging me for a while, but can any of y'all explain this?

The 4th edition players handbook says, on page 220, that small characters use the same weapons medium creatures do, however they must use Versatile weapons 2-handed and can't use 2-handed weapons at all. Then it completely contradicts iteslf and goes on to say that creatures can't use weapons designed for larger creatures, using the example "A human can't fit his or her hands properly around the hilt of a fire giant's dagger, let alone use it as an effective weapon."

I can see doing something illogical like this for balance/playability, but I know some of my players are going to demand a Large-sized Versatile weapon to use 2-handed and cry it ain't fair that small creatures can do it but medium ones can't. Is it best to just ignore this rule and go the 3.5 route when it comes to weapon sizes? 4e already implements the sizing system anyway.

AirGuitarGod32
2010-01-11, 02:19 PM
This has been bugging me for a while, but can any of y'all explain this?

The 4th edition players handbook says, on page 220, that small characters use the same weapons medium creatures do, however they must use Versatile weapons 2-handed and can't use 2-handed weapons at all. Then it completely contradicts iteslf and goes on to say that creatures can't use weapons designed for larger creatures, using the example "A human can't fit his or her hands properly around the hilt of a fire giant's dagger, let alone use it as an effective weapon."

I can see doing something illogical like this for balance/playability, but I know some of my players are going to demand a Large-sized Versatile weapon to use 2-handed and cry it ain't fair that small creatures can do it but medium ones can't. Is it best to just ignore this rule and go the 3.5 route when it comes to weapon sizes? 4e already implements the sizing system anyway.

I'm tempted to agree with forgoing this system and returning to 3.5's system. I admit, they did try, but for Cthulu's sake, let's not ditch one complicated system for one thats not only buggy, but MORE complex. That said, I say this inconsistency derives from the sheer setup of WotC. They give certain parts of a book to certain people and expect them all to be on the same page. This causes absolute confusion to say the least, especially when the system is designed for PCs to play Medium-sized races. Think of how few small and large "PC friendly" races there are vs. ALL of the Medium PC races. This, of course, coming from 3.5, but its prevelant in 4e with the combo of MM1&2 and PHB1&2. This, coupled with the pseudo-sub-system of sizing weapon's blatant descrepency makes me question if the designers even proofread the book...

Blackfang108
2010-01-11, 02:26 PM
There's a 55+ page thread about this in the Wizard's General D&D forum.

Kylarra
2010-01-11, 02:31 PM
It's not an inconsistency.

Small and medium characters use the same weapon table. Small characters can only wield those labeled small or versatile, whereas medium characters can use any.

Large, Huge, and Gargantuan characters use their own versions of the weapon table with increased damage dice.

Blackfang108
2010-01-11, 02:38 PM
Really, it's just a way to pigeon-hole Small characters.

What really bites is the small weapons from Ebberon all suck. And you have to spend a feat just to use them.

AirGuitarGod32
2010-01-11, 02:38 PM
It's not an inconsistency.

Small and medium characters use the same weapon table. Small characters can only wield those labeled small or versatile, whereas medium characters can use any.

Large, Huge, and Gargantuan characters use their own versions of the weapon table with increased damage dice.

wow...

I sound like a bumbling idiot....