PDA

View Full Version : Small greatsword vs longsword vs bastard sword



Threeshades
2007-04-06, 06:50 AM
I'm not really playing the 3.5 version but i have got a little matter here i'd like to discuss about it anyway.

since 3.5 there is a whole new system of weapons. For every weapon there is a smaller size-category version noted. (In 3.0 there were only a few exotic weapons that had a halfling version but thats it)
Now I've noticed we got the normal middle-sized longsword which deals 1d8 damage and as an exotic weapon the bastard sword that deals 1d10 damage.
But there also is the small Greatsword that also deals 1d10 damage. And if i see that right the Small greatsword would be counted as a middle sized martial weapon.
So wouldnt it make so much more sense to just use a small greatsword for your human fighter instead of the weaker longsword or wasting a feat to use a bastard sword?

I'm sure thats not the intent of the rules but I dont really get through the rules here. Can somebody explain how this all works?

Attilargh
2007-04-06, 06:57 AM
From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize)

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.
Personally, I don't mind the rule. I just can't fathom how a halfling could get his hands around the grip of a Giant's dagger properly.

Rigeld2
2007-04-06, 07:30 AM
The only Giant's weapon they could use is a Hill Giant. Most Giants are Huge, so the dagger is Light at huge, one handed at Large, and 2 handed at Medium, making it impossible to wield at Small.

Darrin
2007-04-06, 07:42 AM
I'm sure thats not the intent of the rules but I dont really get through the rules here. Can somebody explain how this all works?

The 3.5 weapon sizes were a "fix" for a problem in 3.0, but in some cases the fix can be worse than the original problem (for example, just look at the 3.5 version of Monkey Grip, and assuming you can parse the text correctly, bask in the warm glow of utter suckitude).

The original problem in 3.0 was that certain weapons like rapiers were only found in the core books in a particular default size, meaning small-sized characters either had to use them two-handed or couldn't use them at all. More specific weapons for different sizes could be found in sourcebooks, but that required a sourcebook and possibly an Exotic Weapon Proficiency just to use a weapon specifically designed for a character of the appropriate size. This essentially meant that a medium-sized rapier and a small-sized rapier were two completely different weapons, requiring separate feats, etc. It also made TWF more of a headache for non-medium characters.

The 3.5 "fix" made weapons scalable. This made all rapiers of all sizes the same weapons (so Weapon Focus, Finesse, etc. apply regardless of size). Scaling the weapon damage up and down also made spells like Alter Size and Enlarge Person much easier to deal with. For using a weapon that isn't the correct size, you take a -2 penalty to hit for each size category of difference.

There are at least two major problems with the fix that have not been corrected in 3.5:

1) That -2 penalty? There's absolutely nothing in the core books or any of the supplements that I'm aware of that reduces or eliminates that penalty. Not even the previously-mentioned Monkey Grip. You think of all the various feats and abilities that eliminate/offset a penalty, and that one has never come up. There are no spells in core that easily or permanently resize weapons, either (mucking around with Shrink Item, Reduce Person, or Permanency induces some major headaches).

2) Weapon Equivalency. As you have noticed, the small-sized Greatsword and the medium-sized Bastard Sword have identical stats (other than the weight, which is a bit fungible). If you use the weapon damage scaling tables, you'll notice that if you increase or reduce the sizes, they scale exactly. So if your halfling barbarian picks up a medium Bastard Sword, even though the stats are identical to a small Greatsword, he gets a -2 penalty that he can't get rid of.

(Allowing Weapon Equivalency is mentioned somewhere as an optional rule, but by RAW it doesn't exist.)

If you do allow Weapon Equivalency as an optional rule, then essentially anything that has the stats of a medium Bastard Sword could be treated as a small Greatsword or vice versa. Likewise, anything with the stats of a dagger could be treated as a dagger... for example, an medium dagger, a small shortsword, or a tiny longsword all have the same stats.

Without Weapon Equivalency, you also get yet another dirty trick with which a sadistic DM can yank around players with: "Good news, Sir Smackalot! You finally found that +5 Holy Avenger that you've been dreaming about for the last six months. Now you can finally restore your Clan's Honor, gain back your standing at the temple, and set in motion the downfall of your arch-nemesis Darth Wedgie. Unfortunately, I rolled for it's size on this table and it came up tiny."

TomTheRat
2007-04-06, 07:58 AM
"Good news, Sir Smackalot! You finally found that +5 Holy Avenger that you've been dreaming about for the last six months. Now you can finally restore your Clan's Honor, gain back your standing at the temple, and set in motion the downfall of your arch-nemesis Darth Wedgie. Unfortunately, I rolled for it's size on this table and it came up tiny."

Shouldn't it resize? I thought small/medium characters were supposed to be able to use all of the "default" treasure you find.


1) That -2 penalty? There's absolutely nothing in the core books or any of the supplements that I'm aware of that reduces or eliminates that penalty.

You know... not having a solution for #1 makes #2 ok. I'm sure there is some psychotically overpowered dual-wielding small versions of good weapons strategy out there that is nerfed by virtue of that -2 penalty. Its probably not a bad thing.

Rigeld2
2007-04-06, 08:08 AM
Shouldn't it resize? I thought small/medium characters were supposed to be able to use all of the "default" treasure you find.
Misc. Magic items do, Weapons and Armor dont always.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#sizeAndMagicItems

Threeshades
2007-04-06, 08:13 AM
The 3.5 weapon sizes were a "fix" for a problem in 3.0, but in some cases the fix can be worse than the original problem (for example, just look at the 3.5 version of Monkey Grip, and assuming you can parse the text correctly, bask in the warm glow of utter suckitude).

The original problem in 3.0 was that certain weapons like rapiers were only found in the core books in a particular default size, meaning small-sized characters either had to use them two-handed or couldn't use them at all. More specific weapons for different sizes could be found in sourcebooks, but that required a sourcebook and possibly an Exotic Weapon Proficiency just to use a weapon specifically designed for a character of the appropriate size. This essentially meant that a medium-sized rapier and a small-sized rapier were two completely different weapons, requiring separate feats, etc. It also made TWF more of a headache for non-medium characters.

The 3.5 "fix" made weapons scalable. This made all rapiers of all sizes the same weapons (so Weapon Focus, Finesse, etc. apply regardless of size). Scaling the weapon damage up and down also made spells like Alter Size and Enlarge Person much easier to deal with. For using a weapon that isn't the correct size, you take a -2 penalty to hit for each size category of difference.

There are at least two major problems with the fix that have not been corrected in 3.5:

1) That -2 penalty? There's absolutely nothing in the core books or any of the supplements that I'm aware of that reduces or eliminates that penalty. Not even the previously-mentioned Monkey Grip. You think of all the various feats and abilities that eliminate/offset a penalty, and that one has never come up. There are no spells in core that easily or permanently resize weapons, either (mucking around with Shrink Item, Reduce Person, or Permanency induces some major headaches).

2) Weapon Equivalency. As you have noticed, the small-sized Greatsword and the medium-sized Bastard Sword have identical stats (other than the weight, which is a bit fungible). If you use the weapon damage scaling tables, you'll notice that if you increase or reduce the sizes, they scale exactly. So if your halfling barbarian picks up a medium Bastard Sword, even though the stats are identical to a small Greatsword, he gets a -2 penalty that he can't get rid of.

(Allowing Weapon Equivalency is mentioned somewhere as an optional rule, but by RAW it doesn't exist.)

If you do allow Weapon Equivalency as an optional rule, then essentially anything that has the stats of a medium Bastard Sword could be treated as a small Greatsword or vice versa. Likewise, anything with the stats of a dagger could be treated as a dagger... for example, an medium dagger, a small shortsword, or a tiny longsword all have the same stats.

Without Weapon Equivalency, you also get yet another dirty trick with which a sadistic DM can yank around players with: "Good news, Sir Smackalot! You finally found that +5 Holy Avenger that you've been dreaming about for the last six months. Now you can finally restore your Clan's Honor, gain back your standing at the temple, and set in motion the downfall of your arch-nemesis Darth Wedgie. Unfortunately, I rolled for it's size on this table and it came up tiny."

Thank you that helped me a lot with that. i might talk to my party if we use those weapon rules despite still playing 3.0 rules. I think it might be an improvement. At least for small characters who could use a little more powerful weapons.
Though the weapon equivalency optional rule is a little confusing still.

So does it mean a halfling could wield a medium sized longsword single-handed taking a -2 on his attack rolls? or do weapons that are bigger than your appropriate size still have to be used two-handed (which would end up in a longsword for a halfling as two-handed and -2 on attack rolls)?
And would a small sized longsword count as a light weapon (for purpose of weapon finesse and 2-handed fighting and the use of a light offhand weapon)

Attilargh
2007-04-06, 08:18 AM
The only Giant's weapon they could use is a Hill Giant. Most Giants are Huge, so the dagger is Light at huge, one handed at Large, and 2 handed at Medium, making it impossible to wield at Small.
For the record, Fire, Frost and Stone Giants are also Large. That means only a third of the SRD's Giants are Huge. :smalltongue:

Lapak
2007-04-06, 09:44 AM
2) Weapon Equivalency. As you have noticed, the small-sized Greatsword and the medium-sized Bastard Sword have identical stats (other than the weight, which is a bit fungible). If you use the weapon damage scaling tables, you'll notice that if you increase or reduce the sizes, they scale exactly. So if your halfling barbarian picks up a medium Bastard Sword, even though the stats are identical to a small Greatsword, he gets a -2 penalty that he can't get rid of.You know, as much as I am wary of introducing realism into the game, this is one change I am wholeheartedly in favor of. The damage may be indentical, but the two weapons would not be the same thing - most critically, the grip on a Medium dagger and the grip on a Medium greatsword are both sized for a Medium-sized humanoid's hand. Leaving length, shape and weight of blade aside, the handle on a medium bastard sword is going to be too thick around for the halfling barbarian to get a good grip on, while the Small greatsword will have a grip that is sized for him.

The 3.5 rules just make sense to me.

Darrin
2007-04-06, 10:04 AM
You know, as much as I am wary of introducing realism into the game, this is one change I am wholeheartedly in favor of. The damage may be indentical, but the two weapons would not be the same thing - most critically, the grip on a Medium dagger and the grip on a Medium greatsword are both sized for a Medium-sized humanoid's hand.

I've never found the "grip" argument compelling in a game where someone with a Strength of 3 is able to use a crossbow and has the exact same range using a bow as someone with Strength 18+. Particularly when you're dealing with simple weapons that don't really have grips... clubs and quarterstaves are essentially just pieces of wood. Would a medium character really find the thinner grip on a small-sized longsword all that cumbersome? Likewise, if a halfling has to use both hands on a medium-sized longsword, is the thickness of the grip really going to matter?

You did mention being wary of the "R" word, something that should only be considered along with backing away slowly, making no sudden movements.

Rigeld2
2007-04-06, 11:58 AM
I've never found the "grip" argument compelling in a game where someone with a Strength of 3 is able to use a crossbow and has the exact same range using a bow as someone with Strength 18+.
Crossbows have winches (or... can have). Winches are strength multipliers. Hence, anyone can use any crossbow.

kpenguin
2007-04-06, 12:11 PM
I believe that weapon equivalency was mentioned in the DMG as a variant. I personally prefer to leave weapon size as is because most of the time my PCs end up selling the weapons they find anyway. Also, I don't use the treasure generation table. I use treasure that is appropriate to the encounter, both in wealth level and common sense. Why would the cloud giant lord have a tiny +3 shocking adamantine trident?

elliott20
2007-04-06, 12:26 PM
actually, the grip size DOES make a difference. try sticking a 4 lb blade at theh end of a chopstick and tell me that grip makes no difference.

thorgrim29
2007-04-06, 12:41 PM
It does, try using a kiddy's foil when fencing, good luck.

levi
2007-04-06, 12:43 PM
A better explanation of the weapon equivilancy variant rule is that you basically keep using the 3.0 size rules (medium shortsword = small longwsord, no -2 penalty), while still getting the benifits of the 3.5 chage (small rapiers, quarterstaffs, etc.).

The easiest way to impliment something like 3.5 in a 3.0 game is to simply scale down weapons as needed. For example, the main blades in 3.0 are pretty well set up, so you're fine in that department. But if your halfling pirate wants a rapier, you can scale the medium one down one die to make it small. (Feats and profiencies can be changed or not, as you wish.)

I wouldn't worry about the -2 penalty for innapropriatly sized weapons in a 3.0 game, even if adapting some aspects of the 3.5 weapon rules. While it may be an appeal to realism, it simply hoses players. Small players have less options with loot from medium characters, all players get hosed with loot outside the small/medium range.

In 3.5, I've been considering using the weapon equivilancy variant, or a variant of this variant. My variant, which isn't quite polished yet, allows for Craft (weaponsmithing) to rehilt and otherwise rebalance an ususually sized weapon to remove the -2 penalty. The DCs and costs get higher as the size range increases.

One pet project of mine is a reworking of the 3.5 weapons systems which is basically the 3.0 absolute size rules with the holes filled and some rebalancing and tweaking. It's not complete yet, but when it's done, I hope it will be the best of both worlds. (It's basically the weapon equvilancy variant, but expanded and revised.)

Matthew
2007-04-06, 01:15 PM
You know, as much as I am wary of introducing realism into the game, this is one change I am wholeheartedly in favor of. The damage may be indentical, but the two weapons would not be the same thing - most critically, the grip on a Medium dagger and the grip on a Medium greatsword are both sized for a Medium-sized humanoid's hand. Leaving length, shape and weight of blade aside, the handle on a medium bastard sword is going to be too thick around for the halfling barbarian to get a good grip on, while the Small greatsword will have a grip that is sized for him.

The 3.5 rules just make sense to me.


I've never found the "grip" argument compelling in a game where someone with a Strength of 3 is able to use a crossbow and has the exact same range using a bow as someone with Strength 18+. Particularly when you're dealing with simple weapons that don't really have grips... clubs and quarterstaves are essentially just pieces of wood. Would a medium character really find the thinner grip on a small-sized longsword all that cumbersome? Likewise, if a halfling has to use both hands on a medium-sized longsword, is the thickness of the grip really going to matter?

You did mention being wary of the "R" word, something that should only be considered along with backing away slowly, making no sudden movements.


actually, the grip size DOES make a difference. try sticking a 4 lb blade at theh end of a chopstick and tell me that grip makes no difference.

The problem with the 'grip' argument is that it assumes that all Medium Swords have the same sized grip, which is a bit silly, since sword grips would vary in size for Characters of the same size range.
Medium is a range and a Sword created for a Medium Character at the lowest end of that range should logically be as comfortable (or better) a fit for a Character in the top end of the Small range as that of a Character in the top end of the Medium range.
It's just an abstraction, there's nothing particularly realistic about the sizing rules when left without interpretation. Responsible DM fiat in conjunction with the RAW is almost always going to be a more reliable guide than the RAW alone for this sort of thing.

Lapak
2007-04-06, 01:18 PM
Would a medium character really find the thinner grip on a small-sized longsword all that cumbersome? Likewise, if a halfling has to use both hands on a medium-sized longsword, is the thickness of the grip really going to matter? Yes, it would. It's easier to imagine from our perspective by looking up a size category. Take an ogre's sword; for his hand to close around it properly the grip is probably going to be at least as thick as the business end of a baseball bat, rather than the gripping end. Pick up a bat from the wrong end, and try to execute any subtle maneuvers with it. You'll find that the fact that your hands are already extended by stretching to have a good grip significantly reduces the fineness of the motion you can achieve, compared with your motor control when gripping the actual gripping end. That's the -2 penalty right there. You can use it, but it's just not sized right.

Even on a theoretical greatclub-sized baseball bat, the grip would have about the same thickness where your hand actually was expected to hold it.

EDIT to Matthew: Yes, there is variation within Medium size, but the variation between Medium and Large or Medium and Small is much greater - we're talking about a being twice as big (or half the size.) That's a more significant difference.

Matthew
2007-04-06, 01:30 PM
Where's the cut off point, though? That's the problem. Do you have to weigh a certain amount or be a certain height to qualify for Large or Small or Medium? What about if you just miss the qualification? Is there some other size category inbetween? Using the random height and weight statistics, a 3' 9" Dwarf Female who weighs 104 lbs is Medium Sized, as is a 6' 6" Man who weighs 280 lbs, but a 3' 8" Gnome who weighs 48 lbs is Small Sized.

The ranges are just approximates, it's silly to think a Great Sword sized for the Human is going to be any more appropriate for the Dwarf than a Great Sword sized for the Dwarf used by the Gnome.

Lapak
2007-04-06, 02:03 PM
The ranges are just approximates, it's silly to think a Great Sword sized for the Human is going to be any more appropriate for the Dwarf than a Great Sword sized for the Dwarf used by the Gnome.While it's a reasonable point, you have to balance the fact that there is a difference against the fact that you have to choose a cutoff point somewhere. Since the Size rules apply to similar situations all across the board (just as easy to hit/hide/grapple the 6'6" man as the 4'0" dwarf), and they're easy to rule on, I'm comfortable with that level of abstraction.

Threeshades
2007-04-06, 02:42 PM
hearing all this i think it would have been best to just leave the weapons the way they are and add smaller versions of those weapons that dont have any yet (like rapier, bastard sword, two-bladed sword, and all those)

Latronis
2007-04-06, 03:03 PM
looks it's a +2 flaming bastard sword who wants it?

Halfling: I do

cool it's small.

Or if its a specific npc with a specific weapon

take it to a blacksmith in town, spend some cash get it reforged, cheaper then buying one.