Why The Weapon Shrinkage, Belkar?

[Darth Paul]

Here's a conundrum that goes all the way back to strip #001-

Why, oh why, did Belkar suffer "weapon shrinkage" when the team upgraded to 3.5 rules? Short swords and daggers alike are both listed as light weapons, hence either can be used one-handed by a Small creature and also as an off-hand weapon by one using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. I ran a test character generation using v3.5 E-Tools to confirm my theory, and with either short swords or daggers the To Hit bonus remains the same for a Halfling Ranger of 2nd level or above with 2-weapon specialty.

The only difference is that short swords do 1d4+STR bonus damage for a halfling, whereas daggers do only 1d3+STR. So Belkar voluntarily, as far as I can tell, gave up a full 25% of his damage potential. This is totally out of character for our beloved psychopath. :belkar: The only advantages I can see him gaining are 1) having a throwing weapon option in hand at all times, which we have seen him use against various foes (the warehouse fight with Miko and later against the hobgoblins outside Azure City both come to mind), and 2) the daggers weigh only 1 pound, vs. 2 lbs for short swords, so he could carry a large number of daggers without a weight penalty. Now, point 2) definitely would be attractive for Death's Lil' Helper, but would these two occasional advantages taken together still offset the 25% damage loss in every round of melee, considering that Belkar is primarily a melee fighter?

And since this is a question prompted by the very first episode, I apologize if it's been covered somewhere already and I haven't found that thread yet. (The search function on the site has me baffled, it returns 20 pages of results no matter what search terms I enter.)

[Rogar Demonblud]

Belkar is size Small, therefore he uses weapons sized for Small. RAW strikes again, as is par for the course throughout the first book.

[zimmerwald1915]

Here's a conundrum that goes all the way back to strip #001-

Why, oh why, did Belkar suffer "weapon shrinkage" when the team upgraded to 3.5 rules? Short swords and daggers alike are both listed as light weapons, hence either can be used one-handed by a Small creature and also as an off-hand weapon by one using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. I ran a test character generation using v3.5 E-Tools to confirm my theory, and with either short swords or daggers the To Hit bonus remains the same for a Halfling Ranger of 2nd level or above with 2-weapon specialty.

The only difference is that short swords do 1d4+STR bonus damage for a halfling, whereas daggers do only 1d3+STR. So Belkar voluntarily, as far as I can tell, gave up a full 25% of his damage potential. This is totally out of character for our beloved psychopath. :belkar: The only advantages I can see him gaining are 1) having a throwing weapon option in hand at all times, which we have seen him use against various foes (the warehouse fight with Miko and later against the hobgoblins outside Azure City both come to mind), and 2) the daggers weigh only 1 pound, vs. 2 lbs for short swords, so he could carry a large number of daggers without a weight penalty. Now, point 2) definitely would be attractive for Death's Lil' Helper, but would these two occasional advantages taken together still offset the 25% damage loss in every round of melee, considering that Belkar is primarily a melee fighter?

And since this is a question prompted by the very first episode, I apologize if it's been covered somewhere already and I haven't found that thread yet. (The search function on the site has me baffled, it returns 20 pages of results no matter what search terms I enter.)
In Third Edition, a character of one size category could use weapons designed for creatures of another size category as if they were different weapons of his own size category without incurring a penalty to hit for doing so. A Small character like Belkar could use Medium daggers as though they were Small short swords, for instance. In 3.5 Edition, however, characters can't use weapons sized for creatures that don't share their size category without incurring penalties to hit. The joke is that when the universe upgraded to 3.5 Edition, instead of becoming Small short swords, or remaining Medium daggers that he could use, albeit with a penalty, Belkar's Medium daggers became Small daggers.

[Kish]

Oh, this brings back memories. This was the content of the very first post I ever made here.

The answer, is that 3.5ed has variably sized daggers and short swords. In 3.0ed, a halfling who wanted to dual-wield light weapons used two daggers, "Dagger" being a Tiny weapon and thus a weapon which was light for a Small or larger creature, one-handed for a Tiny creature, two-handed for a Diminutive creature, and unwieldable by a Fine creature. Short swords, being a Small weapon, would have been one-handed for Belkar, causing him to have a penalty for using a non-light weapon in his off-hand. Daggers did 1d4 damage, short swords did 1d6.

In 3.5ed, Belkar, being a halfling, has to use special "small weapons," or get penalties for the fact that his weapons aren't designed for a halfling's hands; his daggers are smaller than a human's daggers, and do 1d3 damage rather than 1d4. As Vaarsuvius was not allowed to change her/his barred school from Conjuration, so Belkar was not allowed to change his weapon of choice from daggers to "small short swords."

[evileeyore]

I ran a test character generation using v3.5 E-Tools ...
There's your primary problem, I know the lead coder for Code Monkey Publishing, Mynex (at least he was on e-tools)...

The less said about his shoddy approach to coding and business the better.

[Kish]

The thing that puzzles me about that approach is, well, what does v3.5 E-Tools have to do with 3.0ed? Running a test with it would seem a more logical approach to just going, "Hey, why does Belkar use daggers?" than to trying to figure out an aspect of the conversion from 3.0ed.

Though, again, I didn't understand the joke either until Rich explained it to me long ago--though, in my case, it was a matter of not having noticed the 3.5ed weapon-size rule.

[Terrador]

For what it's worth, Belkar wasn't exactly giving up 25% of his damage potential. Assuming Belkar was stacking on only +4 or so to an attack between magic weapons, STR, and feats (which is a pretty lowballed estimate), Death's Little Helper was comparing 6.5 damage on average to 6 damage on average. Oh, the humanity~!

But seriously, it's a half-point on average. Not going to be relevant.

[Stella]

Belkar's objection appeared to be based around the perception that size matters.

[Keltest]

For what it's worth, Belkar wasn't exactly giving up 25% of his damage potential. Assuming Belkar was stacking on only +4 or so to an attack between magic weapons, STR, and feats (which is a pretty lowballed estimate), Death's Little Helper was comparing 6.5 damage on average to 6 damage on average. Oh, the humanity~!

But seriously, it's a half-point on average. Not going to be relevant.

Every point of damage matters to a munchkin like Belkar! (cue rimshot)

Ok, im going home after that one, that was terrible even for my standards.

[Everyl]

A big part of the joke is that, while most underpowered builds from 3.0 got buffs in the 3.5 conversion, the most noticeable change in Belkar's build was that his weapons got smaller (and thus deal slightly less damage). The rest of that comic is spent outlining all the ways that other party members got more powerful. Durkon, as a dwarf, gained a stability bonus, which IIRC makes him harder to knock over or knock back. Elan, as a bard, gained the ability to wear light armor without penalizing his spellcasting, plus some extra skill points per level. Even Roy got an extra class skill, Intimidate. The ranger class was significantly cleaned up and improved for 3.5, but at the level the party was in strip 001, it would have been virtually identical to 3.0, so the biggest change in Belkar's character sheet was the smaller, less-damaging weapons.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Every point of damage matters to a munchkin like Belkar! (cue rimshot)

Ok, im going home after that one, that was terrible even for my standards.

I disagree. I took me a couple readings to get that, but once I understood, I thought it was quite funny.

To the OP: Belkar didn't switch weapons when he suffered weapon shrinkage- the weapons he was using literally shrank, going from medium to small.

[Darth Paul]

To the OP: Belkar didn't switch weapons when he suffered weapon shrinkage- the weapons he was using literally shrank, going from medium to small.

Are you sure? It really looks like a short sword he is holding at first, and he definitely goes to daggers. (As he says to the wights in #515, "Two daggers, no waiting.") Granted, the first few strips were still just rule jokes, so it's not well to read too much into them, but then the joke wouldn't carry on that long without a reason.

[Keltest]

Are you sure? It really looks like a short sword he is holding at first, and he definitely goes to daggers. (As he says to the wights in #515, "Two daggers, no waiting.") Granted, the first few strips were still just rule jokes, so it's not well to read too much into them, but then the joke wouldn't carry on that long without a reason.

I never thought they were anything but daggers, if for no other reason than ive seen real short swords, which are proportioned significantly differently from daggers.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Are you sure? It really looks like a short sword he is holding at first, and he definitely goes to daggers. (As he says to the wights in #515, "Two daggers, no waiting.") Granted, the first few strips were still just rule jokes, so it's not well to read too much into them, but then the joke wouldn't carry on that long without a reason.

What he is holding afterwords is the same thing that he is holding before it shrinks, only smaller. He goes from medium daggers to small daggers.

[Kish]

Are you sure? It really looks like a short sword he is holding at first, and he definitely goes to daggers. (As he says to the wights in #515, "Two daggers, no waiting.") Granted, the first few strips were still just rule jokes, so it's not well to read too much into them, but then the joke wouldn't carry on that long without a reason.
Wha? His weapons shrink. He doesn't change weapons.

[Morty]

The joke is about the changes in weapon size rules between 3.0 and 3.5. That's literally all there is to it. The joke, such as it is, certainly doesn't "carry on", either. It's never mentioned again.

[Quild]

The only difference is that short swords do 1d4+STR bonus damage for a halfling, whereas daggers do only 1d3+STR. So Belkar voluntarily, as far as I can tell, gave up a full 25% of his damage potential.

Who thaught you math?

The average damage with 1d4 is 2.5 while it's 2 with 1d3 (1*0,25 + 2*0,25 + 3*0,25 + 4*0,25 = 2,5 and 1*1/3 + 2*1/3 + 3*1/3 = 2)

So if we admit that Belkar has 14STR (he might have 16 though), his damage went from 2,5+2 to 2+2. Loss of 0,5 on a basis of 4,5 damages, which would be 11%.
If we admit that he has 16 STR, the loss of damages is only 9%.

[Peelee]

Who thaught you math?

Who taught you English? Also, I wish you'd managed to work a 6% in there.

Two hints there. Ultra bonus points to those who get the reference.

[Darth Paul]

Who thaught[sic] you math?

The average damage with 1d4 is 2.5 while it's 2 with 1d3 (1*0,25 + 2*0,25 + 3*0,25 + 4*0,25 = 2,5 and 1*1/3 + 2*1/3 + 3*1/3 = 2)

So if we admit that Belkar has 14STR (he might have 16 though), his damage went from 2,5+2 to 2+2. Loss of 0,5 on a basis of 4,5 damages, which would be 11%.
If we admit that he has 16 STR, the loss of damages is only 9%.

25% of his weapon base damage, from a max of 4 to a max of 3, is what I meant. I didn't say anything about STR damage, I never got into what the characters' bonuses are. That's a thread I've never visited.

Your response does point out the ridiculousness (ridiculosity?) of Belkar, when his STR bonus equals the max damage for his melee weapons. Exceeds it, even, when he kicks up the patented Halfling Rage Attack.

[Quild]

[QUOTE=Quild;17674302]Who thaught you math?/QUOTE]

Who taught you English? Also, I wish you'd managed to work a 6% in there.

Two hints there. Ultra bonus points to those who get the reference.

Oops, typo. Well, maybe I can rely on my signature for this one, can I?


Tried to got a eight for the reference to Shane Black's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, but couldn't. (It's 1/6 = 8%)
Also I believe that the other quote is with "Grammar", not "English".


@Darth Paul: Where did you mentionned base damages? Why would we take these base damage into account when the stat bonuses are totally matters? Would say that a 1d6 weapon is better than a 1d4+STR weapon?
I can't answer about why these weapon would be better, but I can be a Mathomancer :)
Also, regarding Belkar being a melee fighter, well... He's merely just a melee fighter only because he's quite unable to do anything he should do as a ranger (tracking, spells, use of an animal companion in fight and different skills).
If you want a pure melee fighter, don't pick Belkar, pick a warrior.

[Kish]

Don't pick a warrior, that class has absolutely nothing over Belkar and several things under Belkar.

[Darth Paul]

The only difference is that short swords do 1d4+STR bonus damage for a halfling, whereas daggers do only 1d3+STR. So Belkar voluntarily, as far as I can tell, gave up a full 25% of his damage potential.

You are correct, I should have said base damage potential. As it read, I can see where you were coming from. I stand corrected. But I did mention the damage range for the Small- size weapons in my OP.

[Angelalex242]

Funny thing is, Belkar couldn't have existed back in 2E. The ranger minimums would've force him right out.

[Peelee]

[QUOTE=Peelee;17674474]

Oops, typo. Well, maybe I can rely on my signature for this one, can I?


Tried to got a eight for the reference to Shane Black's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, but couldn't. (It's 1/6 = 8%)
Also I believe that the other quote is with "Grammar", not "English".

And this I've managed to mangle both quotes. Oh well. Clearly you're coming out ahead of me on this one.

[Kish]

You are correct, I should have said base damage potential. As it read, I can see where you were coming from. I stand corrected. But I did mention the damage range for the Small- size weapons in my OP.
And you don't seem to be addressing people actually answering your question in the OP, beyond expressing your apparent belief that the daggers shrinking was Belkar changing weapons rather than the weapons changing, so...have fun.

[Quild]

Don't pick a warrior, that class has absolutely nothing over Belkar and several things under Belkar.

Wait what?
Billions of feats, better HD, some useful class skills.

How is a ranger that doesn't use his rangers "things" better than a warrior?

[Kish]

The warrior class has none of the things you just said; I'm guessing you're thinking of the fighter class.

[Quild]

The warrior class has none of the things you just said; I'm guessing you're thinking of the fighter class.

Seems to me that he does: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm#warrior

I believe that I see your point, though.
There again, I'm French, and only played with the french books :/

[Kish]

...You realize that's in the "Variant Classes" section, right? If you're choosing from those, there is no "Ranger" to choose.

For the base game system and the game system Belkar is from, try this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/warrior.htm).

[Darth Paul]

And you don't seem to be addressing people actually answering your question in the OP, beyond expressing your apparent belief that the daggers shrinking was Belkar changing weapons rather than the weapons changing, so...have fun.

I said, I stood corrected by Quild on what my original wording was. That related to my original belief about the weapons, which is unchanged. Since that's just interpretation of Rich's art, we must agree to disagree. Belkar's daggers don't look like any real live daggers I've ever seen either, but then it's a stick-figure comic. I was going by the overall size relative to Belkar's torso and thinking it was a short sword originally. Then again, the hilt is about as long as the blade, it could be a dagger.

It's really not a big deal, I just wondered if there was a rule-based reason I was unaware of. I always thought that the size of a Small character meant they wielded their weapons less effectively, now I know thanks to the replies that it is the weapons that are smaller. Doesn't make much sense either way, but that's 3.5 for you.

[Quild]

...You realize that's in the "Variant Classes" section, right? If you're choosing from those, there is no "Ranger" to choose.

For the base game system and the game system Belkar is from, try this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/warrior.htm).

Didn't realize that they were two different base game system, nope. Thought that could fit with generic classes as well as prestige classe do (which is obvious and different for prestige class, I concurr).

I was totally thinking about the Fighter though, it's just that Warrior sounded as the right translation.

[Kish]

Since that's just interpretation of Rich's art, we must agree to disagree.
Huh? I don't even follow what you're saying now. What is "just interpretation of Rich's art"?

[Quild]

Huh? I don't even follow what you're saying now. What is "just interpretation of Rich's art"?

Well, seems like he believes that the weapons that Belkar had before shrinkage were small short swords when everyone else says they were medium (or bigger, why not? Was there a penalty for more than one size difference) daggers.

@Darth Paul: I guess that the thing is that yes, Belkar is using daggers while he could use short swords. But the joke would have been the same if he had a medium short sword that went to small short sword.

[Kish]

There were no "small short swords" in 3.0ed. Every short sword was a Small-size weapon, every dagger a Tiny-size weapon, every long sword a Medium-size weapon, every greatsword a Large-size weapon. The way racial weapon sizes was that a halfling would have wielded a Tiny weapon as a light weapon, a Small weapon as a one-handed weapon, a Medium weapon as a two-handed weapon, where a human would have wielded a Small weapon as a light weapon, a Medium weapon as a one-handed weapon, a Large weapon as a two-handed weapon, and an ogre would have wielded a Medium weapon as a light weapon and a Large weapon as a one-handed weapon.

This is why I don't get the "we have to agree to disagree because it's all about interpretations of Rich's art style" thing. At best, interpretations of Rich's art style affect a largely meaningless footnote to the joke; the entire substance of the joke is that the weapon sizes rule was completely different in 3.0ed. Darth Paul appears to be treating a conversion-from-3.0-to-3.5 joke as something to which 3.0ed rules might be relevant, maybe, but probably not, and if someone thinks they are, that's just an opinion. It's a lot like if someone were to ask about the joke here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html). make an extensive post about his analysis of how Belkar's being short shouldn't affect his being hit by Unholy Blight, and then responded to replies, to what extent he acknowledged them at all, with, "I suppose someone could think it's about Belkar's alignment, not his size, but I disagree."

[Quild]

There were no "small short swords" in 3.0ed. Every short sword was a Small-size weapon, every dagger a Tiny-size weapon, every long sword a Medium-size weapon, every greatsword a Large-size weapon. The way racial weapon sizes was that a halfling would have wielded a Tiny weapon as a light weapon, a Small weapon as a one-handed weapon, a Medium weapon as a two-handed weapon, where a human would have wielded a Small weapon as a light weapon, a Medium weapon as a one-handed weapon, a Large weapon as a two-handed weapon, and an ogre would have wielded a Medium weapon as a light weapon and a Large weapon as a one-handed weapon.

This is why I don't get the "we have to agree to disagree because it's all about interpretations of Rich's art style" thing. At best, interpretations of Rich's art style affect a largely meaningless footnote to the joke; the entire substance of the joke is that the weapon sizes rule was completely different in 3.0ed. Darth Paul appears to be treating a conversion-from-3.0-to-3.5 joke as something to which 3.0ed rules might be relevant, maybe, but probably not, and if someone thinks they are, that's just an opinion. It's a lot like if someone were to ask about the joke here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html). make an extensive post about his analysis of how Belkar's being short shouldn't affect his being hit by Unholy Blight, and then responded to replies, to what extent he acknowledged them at all, with, "I suppose someone could think it's about Belkar's alignment, not his size, but I disagree."

Then I'm lost.

Belkar had daggers in 3.0 which were tiny weapons, right?
In 3.5, there's now any size for any kind of weapon, so Belkar had to pick a small dagger.

And tiny to small results in a shrinkage?

He went from an average sized dagger (since there were only one size) to a small one, but still...


And kids, this is why explaining a joke ruins it.

[Doug Lampert]

There were no "small short swords" in 3.0ed.

Yep, any argument based on a claim that what he had prior to "weapon shrinkage" was a small short sword falls down completely on the total non-existence of any such item in the system in question. A short sword in 3.0 is a small weapon, it causes a serious penalty to a halfling if used as the off-hand weapon in two weapon fighting.

Belkar was using two daggers in 3.0, the optimum choice available to him. In 3.5 he's still using daggers, but now it's a crappy choice.

[Doug Lampert]

Then I'm lost.

Belkar had daggers in 3.0 which were tiny weapons, right?
In 3.5, there's now any size for any kind of weapon, so Belkar had to pick a small dagger.

And tiny to small results in a shrinkage?

He went from an average sized dagger (since there were only one size) to a small one, but still...


And kids, this is why explaining a joke ruins it.

The joke was ruined (for you) when you didn't know the 3.0 and 3.5 conversion well enough to recognize the joke.

But, yes, a 3.0 dagger (you don't need to specify a size because ALL 3.0 daggers were the same size) is bigger than a 3.5 small dagger. Because 3.5 scales the weapon to the user and 3.0 scaled how the weapon is wielded to the relative sizes.

[Quild]

Yep, any argument based on a claim that what he had prior to "weapon shrinkage" was a small short sword falls down completely on the total non-existence of any such item in the system in question. A short sword in 3.0 is a small weapon, it causes a serious penalty to a halfling if used as the off-hand weapon in two weapon fighting.

Belkar was using two daggers in 3.0, the optimum choice available to him. In 3.5 he's still using daggers, but now it's a crappy choice.
On what is based the assumption that he was using two weapon fighting?

I see him using two daggers on Uncivil Servant but it doesn't looks like it's 3.5 since they are the usual size.
And I see him wearing only one weapon on first comic.


Also, nope, joke wasn't ruined for me. Not knowing the specific rule applying doesn't prevent me to understand that the change of rule is the reason for the weapon shrinkage while Belkar was expecting some upgrade. Actually, like most, I started to read oots before I ever played D&D.

[Keltest]

On what is based the assumption that he was using two weapon fighting?

I see him using two daggers on Uncivil Servant but it doesn't looks like it's 3.5 since they are the usual size.
And I see him wearing only one weapon on first comic.


Also, nope, joke wasn't ruined for me. Not knowing the specific rule applying doesn't prevent me to understand that the change of rule is the reason for the weapon shrinkage while Belkar was expecting some upgrade. Actually, like most, I started to read oots before I ever played D&D.

Because he is using two weapons and is a ranger.

[Kish]

Then I'm lost.

Belkar had daggers in 3.0 which were tiny weapons, right?
In 3.5, there's now any size for any kind of weapon, so Belkar had to pick a small dagger.

And tiny to small results in a shrinkage?

It has to do with how the terms are used.

3.5ed: Tiny, Small, Large, or Huge relates to the size of the version of that weapon made for a human. A Tiny Greatsword is the same size as a Medium Short Sword.

3.0ed: Tiny, Small, Large, or Huge relates to the size of the intended wielder. Same size category as wielder=a main-hand weapon. One size category smaller than wielder=a light weapon. One size category larger than wielder=a two-handed weapon. A Tiny anyweapon is guaranteed to be neither more nor less than two sizes smaller than a Medium anyweapon; a Medium weapon is never larger than a Large weapon. The same "sword-and-board" build uses a greatsword (wielded one-handed with a shield) for an ogre, a longsword for a human, a shortsword for a halfling, a dagger for a pixie.


On what is based the assumption that he was using two weapon fighting?
All 3.0ed rangers had two-weapon fighting abilities. "You can take archery abilities instead" is a 3.5ed thing.

[Quild]

All 3.0ed rangers had two-weapon fighting abilities. "You can take archery abilities instead" is a 3.5ed thing.

I'm not sure about the explanation about sizes. But idc.

Regarding the quote, still, we don't see him using an off-hand. Being able to doesn't make him doing it. I guess that he would have nothing to lose by using an off-hand but still, looks like he didn't.

But really, I don't want to debate more on this, sooooo, I'm leaving this topic!

[Morty]

I think the Giant could link this thread next time someone asks why he doesn't do rules-specific jokes anymore.

[Knaight]

Belkar had daggers in 3.0 which were tiny weapons, right?
In 3.5, there's now any size for any kind of weapon, so Belkar had to pick a small dagger.

And tiny to small results in a shrinkage?

It's not a tiny dagger to a small dagger. In 3.0, the weapons themselves had a size. The dagger was a tiny object. In 3.5, the size is of the person who wields it. The dagger is not a small object, the dagger is a dagger sized for someone of the size category small. On another end, a greatsword is a large object, meaning that medium characters use it as a two handed weapon. A large character in 3.0 would use a greatsword as a one handed weapon of 2d6 damage. in 3.5 a large great sword is a great sword sized for a large creature, thus a large creature uses it in two hands and it doesn't do 2d6 damage. The one handed weapon would be a large long sword.

Basically:

3.0 - Size of the weapon is absolute, size of the wielder relative to size of the weapon determines what it is (at least 1 size below is a light weapon, equal size is a 1 handed weapon, 1 size above is a large weapon, 2 sizes above is unusable). All weapons of 1 class (e.g. short swords) do the same amount of damage.

3.5 - Size of the wielder is absolute, and they use a weapon scaled to them with variable damage.

[factotum]

Regarding the quote, still, we don't see him using an off-hand.

We see him wielding two weapons as soon as strip #3. Unless you're suggesting he levelled up sometime between #1 and #3 and decided to take two-weapon fighting feats, it's pretty reasonable to assume he was also dual wielding in the first strip and Rich just didn't draw the second dagger in because it wasn't relevant to the joke.

[137beth]

Every point of damage matters to a munchkin like Belkar! (cue rimshot)

Ok, im going home after that one, that was terrible even for my standards.

Belkar is not a munchkin, he doesn't drop houses on people or sing about how he represents the lollipop guild. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0616.html)