Disscussion on the Dagger(Sizewise)

[Person Named Bo]

Now for a medium creature, a light one handed weapon is tiny. being that light is 2 sizes smaller than the creatures size is. but why do daggers count as tiny? A cat is a tiny creature, a dagger is much smaller than a cat. Your thoughts on the matter delicious cake are, post them.

[Krimm_Blackleaf]

If a cat had thumbs they'd use daggers like longswords.

[Demented]

A rat is also size tiny.

[Person Named Bo]

A rat is also size tiny.

rats are much bigger than mice when full grown, they are pretty much close to 34/ths of a cat. but the thing is, a cat would use a dagger as a longsword. if it had thumbs. which would mean according to the rules. the dagger is dimunitive. being one size smaller than the cat.

[Necromas]

rats are much bigger than mice when full grown, they are pretty much close to 34/ths of a cat. but the thing is, a cat would use a dagger as a longsword. if it had thumbs. which would mean according to the rules. the dagger is dimunitive. being one size smaller than the cat.

I think the correct answer is who the hell cares....

There's plenty of pointless discrepancies like this that don't make a difference mechanics-wise in 99.9% of the games, so nobody tends to care.

[Demented]

they are pretty much close to 34/ths of a cat.

Assuming you mean 1/34th of a cat, by volume, that's pretty accurate.

Assuming you mean 3/4th of a cat, and are comparing tails to tails and bodies to bodies.... Good lord, man! Where do you live? And can I get some pix? Foot long rats... rarr!

[Matthew]

All size categories are ranges of size. Both a Dagger and a Short Sword are Light Weapons, but they wouldn't both be the same size, same goes for Dwarves and Humans.

[Person Named Bo]

Near a swamp. yes, but what size of item would a dagger be? fine? dimin? tiny?

[Innis Cabal]

...small...why do you ask?

[jjpickar]

They could grip it by the husk... Sorry, this discussion just reminds me of another conversation.

[levi]

Well, the short answer is that weapon sizes refer to the size of the intended weilder, not the size of the weapon itself.

As for what weapon size a dagger is, the answer is, that depends. In the 3.5 weapons system, the size of any weapon is the size of it's intended weilder, so a dagger, if human sized, is a Medium weapon.

However, as your later posts indicate, you seem to be talking about the old absolute weapon sizes of 3.0 (or a system using them in 3.5, like I do). In that case, a dagger, again human sized, is a Tiny weapon. Which is what it says in the 3.0 PHB weapons table.

A weapon of the same weapon size catagory as the weilder's creature size is a One Handed weapon. A weapon one or more sizes smaller than the creature is a Light weapon. A weapon one size larger than the creature is a Two Handed weapon. Two or more sizes larger is normally unweildable.

As for the actual creature scale size of a weapon, I'm not sure. The strike an object example size chart lists a scroll as Dimunutive. If one assumes that a dagger is about the size of a scroll, that would answer the question. However, you cannot simply extrapolate from that point. If you do, most Light weapons end up Tiny, One Handed weapons end up Small, and Two Handed weapons end up Medium. Clearly, this isn't right.

I suppose the best way to figure it out is in an ad hoc manner. If the weapon where a creature, what size catagory seems to fit? As most weapons are long and skinny, perhaps looking at the size catagories of snakes and similar creatures will provide some guidance.

[Maroon]

Also, remember that daggers are not knives. It's quite possible to have a dagger over a foot in length.

[JellyPooga]

Also, remember that daggers are not knives. It's quite possible to have a dagger over a foot in length.

Agreed. the term 'Dagger' in D&D means pretty much anything from a Stiletto to a Dirk (which is about a foot and a half long IIRC). It puzzles me that the designation covers so many varieties of "Dagger", when there are so many difernt "Swords" (Shortsword, Longsword, Bastard Sword, Rapier, Scimitar, Greatsword, Falchion, Elven Light/Thinblade, Elven Courtblade and more).

I propose that we Divide the Dagger (with capitals)! How about:

1)Stiletto/Shiv/Switchblade (Highly concealable)
2)Throwing Knife (Uh...for throwing)
3)Dagger/Combat Knife (Melee or Thrown)
4)Dirk (Melee only)
5)Kitchen Knife (has a chance of breaking)
6)Straight Razor (concealable and use it for shaving!)
7)Punch Daggs (Piercing only, higher crit multiplier)
8)Slash Daggs (Slashing only, higher crit threat range)
9)Bludge Daggs (Blud...nah, I'm just being silly now :smalltongue: )
10)Sword Breaker (+2 to disarm checks)
11)Main Gauche (better for TWF...possibly lump this in with Dirk?)

[Peregrine]

Looking at the SRD section on weapon sizes in D&D 3.5e (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize), I see that a couple of statements in this thread don't actually match what the rules say: one, that all weapons of a category must be of the same size; and two, that 3.5e totally eliminated the idea of weapons having a size of their own, rather than just their wielder's size. Specifically, check out this passage:

A weapon’s size category isn’t the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon’s size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.(Emphasis mine.)

Note that this is actually one category off what weapon sizes were in 3e. In 3e, a Large weapon was two-handed for a Medium wielder. Now, in 3.5e, a two-handed weapon for a Medium wielder is usually Medium. So we can't necessarily import the dagger size used in 3e (which was Tiny, and thus matches the 'in general' rule given).

Personally, I would vote for Diminutive. (This typically covers lengths from 6" to 1 ft.)

[Matthew]

Agreed. the term 'Dagger' in D&D means pretty much anything from a Stiletto to a Dirk (which is about a foot and a half long IIRC). It puzzles me that the designation covers so many varieties of "Dagger", when there are so many difernt "Swords" (Shortsword, Longsword, Bastard Sword, Rapier, Scimitar, Greatsword, Falchion, Elven Light/Thinblade, Elven Courtblade and more).

I propose that we Divide the Dagger (with capitals)! How about:

1)Stiletto/Shiv/Switchblade (Highly concealable)
2)Throwing Knife (Uh...for throwing)
3)Dagger/Combat Knife (Melee or Thrown)
4)Dirk (Melee only)
5)Kitchen Knife (has a chance of breaking)
6)Straight Razor (concealable and use it for shaving!)
7)Punch Daggs (Piercing only, higher crit multiplier)
8)Slash Daggs (Slashing only, higher crit threat range)
9)Bludge Daggs (Blud...nah, I'm just being silly now :smalltongue: )
10)Sword Breaker (+2 to disarm checks)
11)Main Gauche (better for TWF...possibly lump this in with Dirk?)
I wouldn't vote for this. You might not recall the hideous days of (A)D&D and the endless Weapon Tables. One of my favourite things about 3.x was the simplification of the Weapons Tables. Since the, obviously, there has been a glut of weapons of one type or another, but I wouldn't want to see eleven different varieties of Dagger in D&D.

[JellyPooga]

I wouldn't vote for this. You might not recall the hideous days of (A)D&D and the endless Weapon Tables. One of my favourite things about 3.x was the simplification of the Weapons Tables. Since the, obviously, there has been a glut of weapons of one type or another, but I wouldn't want to see eleven different varieties of Dagger in D&D.

Yes indeed I do (just about). My main complaint is the fact that swords get all the love. I don't really think there needs to be 11 types of dagger, but I do think there should be Throwing and Melee (Piercing, Slashing and Piercing/Slashing) and a General.

[Demented]

Pah, you complain about swords. Look at the number of polearms!
Really, the weapons should be classified according to their function, rather than the style associated with a name. That way, nobody would get hung up about whether a rapier is really a rapier.

[Roderick_BR]

If these get too confusing, just use the weapon size rules from 3.0
Makes more sense.

[JellyPooga]

If these get too confusing, just use the weapon size rules from 3.0
Makes more sense.

:smallannoyed: Why? Why does it make more sense? :smallmad: Do Halflings not make their own weaponry or something?:smallyuk: AARRGH! :smallfurious: I hate it when people say that!...

...

...

...

...

...Sorry. I've got it out of my system now. Please ignore me, it's my problem, I'll deal with it. :smallwink:

[Person Named Bo]

Thats also my complaint. I count... 2 daggers in the 3.5 players guide... and 7 swords.

[Demented]

Count the axes or polearms. =P

[Roderick_BR]

:smallannoyed: Why? Why does it make more sense? :smallmad: Do Halflings not make their own weaponry or something?:smallyuk: AARRGH! :smallfurious: I hate it when people say that!...

...

...

...

...

...Sorry. I've got it out of my system now. Please ignore me, it's my problem, I'll deal with it. :smallwink:
It's okay. Yes, they make, but mechanically, it shouldn't be too hard for a bigger sized character to use a weapon. And I'm a bit of a Tolkien purist. A human made dagger should work as a short sword for a halfling, and a human shouldn't have problems to use a halfling's long sword as a short sword for himself.

[Umarth]

It's okay. Yes, they make, but mechanically, it shouldn't be too hard for a bigger sized character to use a weapon. And I'm a bit of a Tolkien purist. A human made dagger should work as a short sword for a halfling, and a human shouldn't have problems to use a halfling's long sword as a short sword for himself.


Go find a 6-8 year old child, about halfling sized, and look at there hands. Your hands are likely to be 3-5 times larger. Are they going to make a weapon with a grip that's going to work well with your hands?

Even if the weapons are phsyically similar in size they are going to be designed for someone whos hands are very diffrent in size. I'd probably allow someone to reuse a blade from a halflings great sword as a long sword but until they replaced the grip on it they would have problems using it (hence the -2 penalty).

[Person Named Bo]

yes, but of course, lets say you had a colossal light weapon. (Huge size) with a hilt designed for a medium creature... what size weapon is it?

[Demented]

It's a Large one-handed fullblade. =P

[Lemur]

The guideline I, and the people I've gamed with use is that weapon size is equivalent to objects sized one step down. So a dagger (tiny weapon) is a diminuitive sized object, a short sword (small weapon) is a tiny object, a longsword (medium weapon) is a small object, and a greatsword (large weapon) is a medium sized object.

This is using 3.0 weapon size rules, which are also the same as d20 Modern. It's relevant in modern games when you want to attack an object. I'm not sure if it actually says anything about this in the rules, but it makes sense to me.

[magic8BALL]

*Reads the first 10 posts and gives up...*

How big's a dagger?

*Roughly:
Greatsword 6ft
Bastard Sword 5 ft
Longsword 3.5ft
Shortsword 1.5ft
Dagger 9inches

...for a human...

Half it for a halfling.
That makes the halflings 9 inch shortsword around the same as a humans dagger (as per the 3.0 rules... but nothing should change size that much in a mechanics revision).

Yeah... a 9 inch blade is a bit big for what I'd call a dagger... I'd call that a large knife... but then again, I wouldn't say a greatsword is twice the size on a longsword... but I wouldn't know that much.

Bottom line: Its a fantacy RPG. Be happy in the knowledge that the rules suggest a dagger is sooo big, and stab something with it.

*...oh so roughly...

[Caduceus]

They could grip it by the husk... Sorry, this discussion just reminds me of another conversation.

What I want to know is if we're talking about an African cat or an European cat. African cats are larger, and could hold the dagger in their teeth. Then again, they're non-migratory. An European cat would not be able to do any such thing. However, if two European cats got the dagger on a line...

[Matthew]

*Reads the first 10 posts and gives up...*

How big's a dagger?

*Roughly:
Greatsword 6ft
Bastard Sword 5 ft
Longsword 3.5ft
Shortsword 1.5ft
Dagger 9inches

...for a human...

Half it for a halfling.
That makes the halflings 9 inch shortsword around the same as a humans dagger (as per the 3.0 rules... but nothing should change size that much in a mechanics revision).

Yeah... a 9 inch blade is a bit big for what I'd call a dagger... I'd call that a large knife... but then again, I wouldn't say a greatsword is twice the size on a longsword... but I wouldn't know that much.

Bottom line: Its a fantacy RPG. Be happy in the knowledge that the rules suggest a dagger is sooo big, and stab something with it.

*...oh so roughly...

Nah, I'd go with:

Dagger: 6-12" Blade, 5-7" Hilt (Total 11-19")
Short Sword: 12-24" Blade, 5-7" Hilt (Total 17-31")
Long Sword: 24-36" Blade, 5-7" Hilt (Total 29-43")
Bastard Sword: 36-48" Blade, 7-12" Hilt (Total 43-60")
Great Sword: 48"+ Blade, 12"+ Hilt (Total 60"+)

Small Characters have a range of possible heights and weights, as do Medium Characters. The difference between a Dwarf and Human can be 'considerable' and yet they use the same sized equipment? D&D sizing rules make no more perfect sense than any other aspect of the system.
It certainly wouln't be much of a stretch for a Halfling to find a Dagger that was appropriately sized for him as a Short Sword, even the Hilt size is not really a big deal, it might need to be rebound to provide a perfect grip, but it's no bigger deal than the smallest and lightest Dwarf on the measurement range (3' 9", 104 lbs) using a Great Sword made for a 6'6" 300 lbs Human Barbarian.

[Caduceus]

Personally, I would rule that a normal dagger could be used as a shortsword by a halfling or other Small character. Masterwork, however, would lose the masterwork benefit until it was resized. Magic weapons, being magical, should work for any size creature, unless specifically stated, as the weapon it is made to be originally.

Example 1: Aragorn (human) tosses a normal dagger to Sam (halfling). Sam can use it as a normal shortsword.

Example 2: Legolas (elf) hands Frodo (halfling) a masterwork dagger. Frodo can use it as a normal shortsword, unless he gets the handle refitted for his hands. Then he can use it as a masterwork shortsword.

Example 3: Gandalf (ALMIGHTY WIZARD OF DOOM AND HEIGHT) bestows upon Pippin (halfling) a magical shortsword +1. Pippin can use it as a shortsword +1 for his size. Pippin loans the sword to Faramir (human). Faramir, too, can use it as a shortsword +1 for his size.

[Amphimir Míriel]

Assuming you mean 1/34th of a cat, by volume, that's pretty accurate.

Assuming you mean 3/4th of a cat, and are comparing tails to tails and bodies to bodies.... Good lord, man! Where do you live? And can I get some pix? Foot long rats... rarr!

Any sufficiently large and crowded city can support rats over 30cm (1 foot) long... Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Calcutta, New York...

Now, think of a D&D metropolis where hundreds of thousands of people live in a walled city, without adequate sewers in most cases.

[Morgan_Scott82]

Now for a medium creature, a light one handed weapon is tiny. being that light is 2 sizes smaller than the creatures size is. but why do daggers count as tiny? A cat is a tiny creature, a dagger is much smaller than a cat. Your thoughts on the matter delicious cake are, post them.

A couple of things here, first of all you're using the 3.0 system for weapon sizes. In 3.5 a weapon's size describes the creature it's designed for, thus there are Large Daggers, Medium Daggers, Tiny Daggers, and even Gargantuan Daggers. In the 3.5 system a dagger appropriately sized for a human is medium, while one for an ogre is large.

Second of all even in 3.0 weapon size and creature size were not the same thing. In fact they were even less related than they are in the current 3.5 system. Therefore a tiny weapon is not equal in size to a tiny creature. I hope this has been helpful.

[Peregrine]

A couple of things here, first of all you're using the 3.0 system for weapon sizes. In 3.5 a weapon's size describes the creature it's designed for, thus there are Large Daggers, Medium Daggers, Tiny Daggers, and even Gargantuan Daggers. In the 3.5 system a dagger appropriately sized for a human is medium, while one for an ogre is large.

No... check the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize). Weapons in 3.5 have a 'size category' that describes what size wielder they are intended for -- but they still also have a size of their own, as objects. As a general rule, two-handed weapons are the same size as the wielder, one-handed weapons are one category smaller, and light weapons are two categories smaller. (If memory serves, this is not the same as 3.0. In 3.0, two-handeds were one category larger, one-handed was the same size, and light was anything smaller -- I seem to recall it may have been down to a certain minimum limit.)

A 'Medium' dagger (i.e. sized for a Medium wielder) was a Tiny object in 3.0, and by the general rule in 3.5, should still be Tiny. But the point of this thread is questioning whether this should be so. My vote is still for Diminutive.

[Morgan_Scott82]

No... check the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize). Weapons in 3.5 have a 'size category' that describes what size wielder they are intended for -- but they still also have a size of their own, as objects. As a general rule, two-handed weapons are the same size as the wielder, one-handed weapons are one category smaller, and light weapons are two categories smaller. (If memory serves, this is not the same as 3.0. In 3.0, two-handeds were one category larger, one-handed was the same size, and light was anything smaller -- I seem to recall it may have been down to a certain minimum limit.)

A 'Medium' dagger (i.e. sized for a Medium wielder) was a Tiny object in 3.0, and by the general rule in 3.5, should still be Tiny. But the point of this thread is questioning whether this should be so. My vote is still for Diminutive.
You are correct, I had the knee jerk reaction that the OP was missinterpreting the rules. Objects still have a size, however that does not refute my second point that object size and creature size are two distinct and separate things. That said, I can't recall an actual passage in the rules that states this so it may be I made an incorrect assumption years ago when learning the system that I still carry with me today.

Assuming my assertion that object size and creatrue size are separate entities is supported by RAW, comparison to a cat was inappropraite. If we want to consider what size the Dagger should be we must compare it to the size of other objects, not creatures.

[Roderick_BR]

Go find a 6-8 year old child, about halfling sized, and look at there hands. Your hands are likely to be 3-5 times larger. Are they going to make a weapon with a grip that's going to work well with your hands?

Even if the weapons are phsyically similar in size they are going to be designed for someone whos hands are very diffrent in size. I'd probably allow someone to reuse a blade from a halflings great sword as a long sword but until they replaced the grip on it they would have problems using it (hence the -2 penalty).
Tell that to Tolkien, then. I just like the 3.0 rules better for weapon usage.

[Peregrine]

Objects still have a size, however that does not refute my second point that object size and creature size are two distinct and separate things. That said, I can't recall an actual passage in the rules that states this so it may be I made an incorrect assumption years ago when learning the system that I still carry with me today.

I think you have, I'm afraid. :smallsmile: A lifesize, rat-shaped wooden statuette would be exactly the same size category as a real rat, having the same size bonus to AC, and so on.

Weapons are a little different, but that's because they're not shaped much like creatures. The rules have guidelines as to the length of creatures in each size category, but I would suspect that, while we could use this for weapons too, a weapon towards the bottom end of a size category's lengths could well be in the next category down -- because most weapons are less thick and bulky than creatures of comparable length ('cept maybe snakes). Contrast with dwarves, which are really at the bottom of Medium but get counted as such because they're very solidly built -- human-sized parts on a condensed frame, if you will.

(Actually, this object/creature distinction could be a carry-over from 3.0... because really, a Medium creature's two-handed weapon being Large makes no sense, if Large objects are comparable to Large creatures. But that's how it worked... as I recall, anyway.)

[Person Named Bo]

Very much argument.

[levi]

In response to all the noise about using the old 3.0 weapon size rules, I'd like to point out that my post in this thread cleary specified which system I was talking about.

Secondly, I don't think creature sizes and weapon sizes where ever considered to be the same scale, even in 3.0. A greatsword simply isn't big enough to be considered Large, or even Medium, it'd be Small, at best. The main use of size in DnD is to figure space/reach and size bonuses to attack and armor class. A greatsword is a much smaller target that a human or dwarf.

The guidelines it gives in the 3.5 weapon rules seem a little screwy. However, I don't really know that it can be fixed with a one to one correspondece between weapon categories and sizes. If you accept my resoning that at greatsword is small, then it would suggest a rule that gets to be two small on the low end. To illustrate, I'll present a chart showing 3.0, 3.5, and a suggested rule one step smaller.

{table=head]Weapon | Handedness | 3.0 Size | 3.5 Size | Hypothetical Size
Dagger | Light | Tiny | Diminutive | Fine
Short Sword | Light | Small | Tiny | Diminutive
Long Sword | One Handed | Medium | Small | Tiny
Great Sword | Two Handed | Large | Medium | Small
[/table]

Note that in the above chart I've made an assumption that a dagger is smaller than a short sword in all systems. Also note that I don't think the 3.0 weapon sizes where ever intended to be on the same scale as creature sizes.

If you examine the chart I've assembled, it becomes apparent (at least to me) that a one-to-one correspondence dosn't seem to make much sense. If you set the greatsword to Small (which seems about right to me), then the short sword and dagger seem to have gotten too small. On the other hand, if you set the dagger to Diminutive, then the size of a greatsword is as large as a person, which doesn't seem right either. Apparently, to be completely accurate, an ad hoc system of some sort is needed.

I think the heart of the problem is that DnD size categories are defined such that each is twice the length (and thus eight times the volume) of the size below. Applying such a system to weapons seems to be a little off. If we assume that the longest greatsword is a generous (this is a fantasy after all) six feet in length, then a strict halving puts the sizes as such:

{table]Great Sword | 6'0"
Long Sword | 3'0"
Short Sword | 1'6"
Dagger | 0'9"
[/table]

So, does that seem right? It looks to me that the short sword is a little off. Does anyone here know the typical length of a gladius?

[Vhaidara]

I think the reason for starting this was something along the lines of this:
A halfling with Reduce Person cast on them, unarmed and finding a human's dagger, what would the situation be as far as penelties?

[Person Named Bo]

Actually standard size for a greatsword is 6'0'' being slightly longer than the average man's arm length then doubled.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Medival great swords are as tall as an average man. Shortswords are slightly less the from just before the shoulder to the wrist. Longswords are slightly larger then the arm. Daggers are from the elbow to the wrist.


That seems about right.

[Matthew]

The terminology here is going to cause endless problems. A Great Sword blade can be anywhere from 36" upwards, depending on what you define as a 'Great Sword'. D&D Sword categories bear almost no resemblance to 'real life'.

A typical blade length for a 'Gladius' could be anything from 12" to 24", but then you end up in the same terminology debate. Is it a Gladius, is it a Spatha, is it a Semi Spatha? What are these terms? Gladius = Sword and it's used like that by Ancient Authors without regard for the discrete categories we are seeking.

That said, suitable ranges for blades might be:

Dagger: Up to 12"
Short Sword: 12" to 24"
Long Sword: 24" to 36"
Bastard Sword: 36" to 48"
Great Sword: 48" to 60"

Hilt, guard and pommel could take up anything from 4 or 5" to 12", depending.

[levi]

I think the reason for starting this was something along the lines of this: A halfling with Reduce Person cast on them, unarmed and finding a human's dagger, what would the situation be as far as penelties? I'll answer this by the rules as written. Whether these answers make any sense is up to you to decide.

Under the 3.5 rules, it's weilded as a greatsword at a -4 pentalty. It's medium, the halfling is now tiny, therefore, it goes up two classes (light -> one handed -> two handed) and takes a -2 penalty per size difference.

Under the 3.0 rules, it's wielded as a longsword and takes no penalty. It's tiny, as is the halfling, so it's a one handed weapon.

[Angafirith]

I think the 3.5 method of giving a penalty makes plenty of sense. It's a little bit of a pet peeve of mine, so please forgive the following rant.

A Greatsword isn't just a bigger version of a dagger. Try to keep in mind how they're probably used. A Greatsword is going to be heavy enough that you're going to slash with it. A Shortsword or dagger will probably be used to pierce.

Now, let's say you're a blacksmith making a dagger. Are you going to be making it the same shape as a greatsword, just differently sized? No, you're probably going to make it a different shape. Are you going to put weight in the same places? Probably not.

Look at a Stilleto. ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stilleto') Now look at this Claymore. ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore') They've got different proportions. Especially look at the proportion of blade to hilt. Could a smaller creature wrap its hand around that effectively? Both are designed for human hands, after all.

It's an attractive notion that a Halfling might use a human's dagger as a shortsword, but I don't think it really works.

[Peregrine]

Maybe Tolkien's hobbits just had big hands?

...*lightbulb*

Big Hands [General]
You are able to comfortably grip weapons with hilts made larger than others of your size would like.
Benefit: The penalties you take for wielding weapons sized for larger creatures are reduced by -2. Thus, a Medium character with this feat could wield a Large longsword two-handed without penalty, or a Huge shortsword two-handed with a -2 penalty.

Edit: Hmm, should probably only be allowed to take it at character creation... you don't suddenly learn to have bigger hands, after all.

[Demented]

Well, there could be worse bonuses for a feat called "Big Hands"...

[Person Named Bo]

*Whap Whap Whap*

(With a fish no less.)

[Caduceus]

*Whap Whap Whap*

(With a fish no less.)

Which reminds me, I need to figure out stats for a swordfish. A swordfish sword...fish. I have a player who keeps bugging me about it purely for the novelty of it, not for him to actually use.

[Demented]

1d8 bludgeoning, two-handed, -2 penalty to opposed checks involving sundering. "You cut my sword...fish!"

Also is a material component in the Explosive Runes, Claymore Style spell.