Tome Weapon Sizing

[CatharzGodfoot]

So, here's an interesting tidbit:
By the core rules, greataxes and greatswords are on the dwarven axe and bastard sword damage tracks, respectively. That is, a greatsword or greataxe designed for a small character deals 1d10 damage.

[Utterfail]

In 3.5 a two-handed (IE, used martial) medium bastard sword is 1d10, while a two-handed medium greatsword is 2d6. While they do scale down the same, they scale up differently. Same with the Axe/Bastard axe, they scale down the same, but the greataxe does more as it scales up. lots of weapons get pretty similar as they scale down, it's just a side effect of everything approaching 1.

I think it's worth keeping them separate since they get a special feature, and it lets characters who bother to use them have a different feel, even if its not really true.

And I looked up the Kusarigama on the d&d wiki. Says its two handed 20x2 1d6 slashing. Works like a spiked chain. So... that one doesn't look like a spiked chain on crack.

Also, It's getting to a point where it's hard to justify the listed 'size' being actual object size instead of something arbitrary. Mostly for the spiked chain and the kusarigama since they pretty well fold up. Do you think a line like "Spiked chains are unwieldly, and count as two sizes larger than they actually are to determine how you can wield them" would work?

[CatharzGodfoot]

In 3.5 a two-handed (IE, used martial) medium bastard sword is 1d10, while a two-handed medium greatsword is 2d6. While they do scale down the same, they scale up differently. Same with the Axe/Bastard axe, they scale down the same, but the greataxe does more as it scales up. lots of weapons get pretty similar as they scale down, it's just a side effect of everything approaching 1.

I think it's worth keeping them separate since they get a special feature, and it lets characters who bother to use them have a different feel, even if its not really true.

Right you are, although the 1d10 damage small greatsword clearly isn't balanced (as a one-handed weapon) relative to the 1d8 damage small longsword.

And I looked up the Kusarigama on the d&d wiki. Says its two handed 20x2 1d6 slashing. Works like a spiked chain. So... that one doesn't look like a spiked chain on crack.

Well, then either they're wrong or you're wrong, because I'm sure as hell not

Seriously, just crack open your DMG to pp. 144/145.
Actually...
I just checked the 3e DMG, and there it's a "medium" weapon, so in the update to 3.5e it apparently went from "medium" to "light" without otherwise changing.

Also, It's getting to a point where it's hard to justify the listed 'size' being actual object size instead of something arbitrary. Mostly for the spiked chain and the kusarigama since they pretty well fold up. Do you think a line like "Spiked chains are unwieldly, and count as two sizes larger than they actually are to determine how you can wield them" would work?

Honestly, object size is fucked up and unclear. It's probably best to just stick with the rule that an object bigger than you is too large to wield, and object your size is two handed, an object one size smaller is one handed, an object two or three sizes smaller is light, and anything smaller than that is too small.

Reach weapons are just longer for their size, which is totally fine because to my knowledge, the size of an object is never fully defined in 3e or 3.5e, only the size of a creature. You can just say that a medium spear is 6 - 7.99..' long and small spear is 5'-5.99..' long, while a medium sword is 3-4.99..' long and a small sword is 2-2.99..' long. A hand and a half weapon is right on the border of two sizes, which is arbitrary becaues we don't know what that border is anyway.

[Utterfail]

[quote="CatharzGodfoot'] Right you are, although the 1d10 damage small greatsword clearly isn't balanced (as a one-handed weapon) relative to the 1d8 damage small longsword.[/quote]

You're absolutely right, which is why I fudged the sword progression slightly. if you look it goes from 1d8 (small) right to 2d6 (medium). I figured if I had to chart the whole damn list up it wouldn't ever have to follow some crap "Weapon dice scale like this!" rule like they do currently, so a bit of fudging is fine. It also lets the bastard sword exist in the 1d10 (medium but one handed) zone and retain its specialness.

It looks a little weak as it's own category, granted (Oh whoo! I do an average of 5.5 damage instead of 4.5 damage with one hand!) but since the tomes make weapon proficiency a "I learned how to use this thing" rule instead of "I just wasted a feat!", it seems fine to let the fighter feel special for training and shit. "You're not martial enough to use my sword like I do.".

And I'll stop stressing on the sizes of chains.

Now that I think of it, frank called the system for learning crap in game that has almost no real effect on your characters power "Exploits". Now that the armor and weapon proficiency feats don't exist, that subsystem should probably be clarified and expanded.

[Username17]

The Kusirigama was never a light weapon. The 3e version did not use that terminology and the 3.5 version was medium. You might be thinking of the OA "weighted chain" which is a double weapon, where both sides count as light weapons.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

The Kusirigama was never a light weapon. The 3e version did not use that terminology and the 3.5 version was medium. You might be thinking of the OA "weighted chain" which is a double weapon, where both sides count as light weapons.

-Username17

Alright, I just looked again to make sure I'm not mad. If you have a 3.5e DMG, please just look at page 145. The "kusari-gama" is clearly listed under "light melee weapons".

In the 3e DMG, it's listed on page 161 as "medium-size". I was thinking in terms of your rules and forget that this means one handed in 3ese rather than two handed.

So I was wrong, but I was also right. Unless my 3.5e DMG happens to be a misprint--and there's nothing about the kusarigama in the errata.

[Utterfail]

Sickles, scythes, and kamas got folded into the same "Scythe" path. I also added a table that helps with names of the generic weapons at different sizes. I only did it for the confusing ones. It should be obvious that a medium sized club is just... a big club.

[Utterfail]

I updated it. When you can use reach is now spelled out in each weapons entry (which is a little more complicated than I was hoping for, but seems to be the best solution for maintaining 3.X similarity with weapons). Added the Kusariagama too.

I now consider this to be complete, excepting any errors or further suggestions that get pointed out to me.

[TarkisFlux]

You mentioned earlier that you were worried about the thin blades... what was the concern exactly? Trying to balance the lowered damage and higher crit stuff against the other blades, or something else?

[edit]More stuff: Reach is interesting in this setup. There's no size requirements, so I can dual wield tiny ranseurs and cut people down at length if I want. That seems bizarre. You may want to make it the general case that reach weapons only grant reach if you are wielding a weapon of your size. With some exotic exceptions (whip, chain), I don't think there are any one-handed reach weapons.

Still more stuff: Why do you have spears and lances? They're essentially the same thing (lances are the sissified tournament version), and spears (not lances) have been set against charges by foot soldiers for centuries. Since you're collapsing the table anyway, can we get rid of this ridiculous split as well?

[Utterfail]

A one handed thin blade (for a medium creature) is a 1d6 19-20x3 weapon. A one handed sword is 1d8 19-20x2. One handed axes are 1d8 20x3.

I'm just not sure dropping the damage one die size is worth the 19-20 and the x3. But honestly I'm not super worried about it since I realized that by the time you might bump a thinblade up to an 18-20x4 weapon (say with insightful strike), a shadow warrior (for example) would have two 15-20x3 claws and some number of 19-20x5 tentacles (assuming they grabbed insightful strike too).

[TarkisFlux]

Fair enough, and pretty much what I would have said. I just noticed that you brought it up and then didn't do anything with it, so I was curious.

I added this stuff to my post about the same time you were replying to it, so I'm just going to repeat it here since I think you missed it:

More stuff: Reach is interesting in this setup. There's no size requirements, so I can dual wield tiny ranseurs and cut people down at length if I want. That seems bizarre. You may want to make it the general case that reach weapons only grant reach if you are wielding a weapon of your size. With some exotic exceptions (whip, chain), I don't think there are any one-handed reach weapons.

Still more stuff: Why do you have spears and lances? They're essentially the same thing (lances are the sissified tournament version), and spears (not lances) have been set against charges by foot soldiers for centuries. Since you're collapsing the table anyway, can we get rid of this ridiculous split as well?

[CatharzGodfoot]

The only thin blades I can find in the books are 18-20 x2, which makes them special only in that they have a higher damage die than the scimitar. 19-20 x3 certainly is a very special number for damage dealers, and would go far to justify their existence.

The sickle/scythe is still superior in every way to the pick: it deals more damage, it deals more damage types, and it has the same critical characteristics--and you can even use it to trip. I again urge you to simply forget about the pick.

As I said before, the kusarigama is a reach weapon that can be wielded in one hand; that is its justification for existing. Take that away and you might as well forget that the weapons (and Kratos) even exist. I can see the justification for going with the 3e DMG stats, however.

---

The last issue could have the biggest impact on the shape of this endeavor. Remember that a bastard sword made for a human is equivalent in every way to a greatsword made for a halfling. This, combined with the reach/space plateau between small and medium size indicates that something special happens there.

Using 3.5e/3e terminology:
"medium" dagger = "small" short sword = "tiny" longsword: 1d4
"medium" short sword = "small" longsword = "tiny" bastard sword: 1d6
"medium" longsword = "small" bastard sword = "tiny" greatsword: 1d8
"medium" bastard sword = "small" greatsword: 1d10
"large" longsword = "medium" greatsword: 2d6
"large" bastard sword: 2d8
"huge" longsword = "large" greatsword: 3d6
"huge" bastard sword: 3d8
"huge" greatsword = "gargantuan" longsword: 4d6.
"gargantuan" bastard sword: 4d8
"gargantuan" greatsword = "colossal" longsword: 6d6.

Ultimately it isn't a huge deal, because all things even a small character using a longsword in both hands can power attack for two damage (average 6.5) and end up at almost the same place as a medium character using a greatsword (average 7).

---

Still more stuff: Why do you have spears and lances? They're essentially the same thing (lances are the sissified tournament version), and spears (not lances) have been set against charges by foot soldiers for centuries. Since you're collapsing the table anyway, can we get rid of this ridiculous split as well?

In real life, lances are spears. In D&D land, however, they are very different. Lances deal double damage on a charge, and are therefore at least worthy of being martial weapons, if not exotic. Spears don't.

[TarkisFlux]

Still more stuff: Why do you have spears and lances? They're essentially the same thing (lances are the sissified tournament version), and spears (not lances) have been set against charges by foot soldiers for centuries. Since you're collapsing the table anyway, can we get rid of this ridiculous split as well?

In real life, lances are spears. In D&D land, however, they are very different. Lances deal double damage on a charge, and are therefore at least worthy of being martial weapons, if not exotic. Spears don't.

So... the only difference you can pull is that one deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount and one can be set to deal double damage when being charged by someone else? So why not not just make them the same damn things and make the "deals double on a charge" a special property of military riding saddle + spear combos (essentially using the saddle to set the spear for a charge and then running someone into it instead of the other way around)? Why do we need to have two weapon categories for such a minor setup difference?

[Edit] Hell, why not just make that a property of military saddles. If you have a weapon that deals double damage against a charge, you can set it with your saddle and then deal double damage to foes when you charge them from horseback. Maybe even allow you to set a weapon of the size of your mount on it.

[Utterfail]

As for the "tiny reach weapons" problem, I tried to fix this in my last edit, but probably wasn't explicit on where I fixed it. The individual weapon entries have a snippet about how reach works for that weapon.

Longspears, for example, have the clause "A longspear has reach. The longspears reach property can only be used when it is a two-handed weapon. " while spiked chains on the other hand say "A spiked chain has reach, so you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. The spiked chains reach property can only be used when it is wielded in two hands (though not necessarily a two-handed weapon)."

That means longspears have to be used in two hands to be used as reach weapons (incentivising the use of the largest longspear you can grab) while spiked chains on the other hand could be used in two hands as a reach weapon, or in one hand without reach (as long as it was a size smaller than you) kasurigamas get that same line too.

On picks: Would they be justified if their damage was upped?

On lances: Folding them into longspears makes sense, but that would warrant bumping longspears up to martial. Which honestly wouldn't be bad.

[TarkisFlux]

That incentivises you to use big reach weapons, but doesn't stop bizarre things from happening. I can still grab a Finer Ranseur and stab people 10' away with it. I'd be doing shit for damage, but I could do it with a toothpick. I think you need to go farther and say that it only applies when using a weapon of your size, otherwise it is treated as a melee range weapon.

On lances: Folding them into longspears makes sense, but that would warrant bumping longspears up to martial. Which honestly wouldn't be bad.

Shit, I somehow missed that you have long spears in here on top of spears and lances and ranseurs. The Ranseur already covers that (or you could rename it to Partisan if you wanted to really cover it without losing much of anything), and does exactly the same stuff (except it's marginally better at medium size). There's already no reason for long spears.

On the combining of lances and spears though, fixing the reach rules to require same size as you means that you can just make spears a reach weapon with range increment. You'd only really ever have one or the other since you suck at throwing the ones you have reach with (two-handed thrown penalty). Which leaves you with a simple reach/range stabby weapon and a stronger martial version that you lose the ability to throw accurately.

[TarkisFlux]

Double post

Actually, that makes spears kind of awesome for a simple weapon, since you get to throw smaller ones instead of disarm with them (comparing against martial equivalent). Not really sure how to deal with that off hand, but wanted to point it out while it was on my mind.

[Utterfail]

It does stop tiny weapons used for reach. A two-handed weapon is specifically a weapon the same size category as you. Grabbing tiny ransuers means you have... tiny ranseurs, and you can hit people in melee with them.

I could probably word it better though.

[TarkisFlux]

Got it finally. You're arguing the difference between a weapon wielded as a two-handed weapon (anything your size or smaller) and actually being a weapon you have to wield two-handed (your size exactly). Which is a really fine distinction that uses lots of the same words on both sides, but is exactly the same thing I've been arguing for anyway.

Yeah, rewording would help. I'd recommend explicit reference to weapon size (as that's what actually matters), or renaming two-handed weapon and one-handed weapon to something that isn't also a wielding style.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Even upping the pick's damage doesn't justify its existence, and it would be quite a leap from codifying and formulating the current rules to the best of your ability.

---

So there are a few absolutely kickass weapons from splat books that you're still missing.

The most important is the dwarven warpike (AKA "heavy poleaxe"), found in Races of Stone, Complete Warrior, and possibly elsewhere. It's an exotic polearm with reach that deals 2d6 piercing or slashing damage with a critical multiplier of three, and it can be set against a charge for double damage and used to trip.

Also worth mentioning is the absolutely retarded "tigerskull club" from It's Cold Outside, which despite being literally made from the skull of a smilodon is a one-handed exotic weapon that deals 1d8 bludgeoning and piercing damage with a critical multiplier of x4. Probably best that we all forget about it, but I still thought that I should make you aware of its existence.

[Utterfail]

Huzzah, I'm on a real computer.

Longspears absorbed lances and became martial. I'll consider doing a bit more when I don't have a headache, but that longspear thing was easy.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Well, that kind of screws simple weapon users...

[Utterfail]

On Longspears: I'm dropping it back to simple. Lances are still folded into it.

On weapon size terminology: Two-Handed and One-Handed can get a bit confusing when used as a definite class of weapons considering that One-Handed weapons can be wielded in two hands and light weapons in one. I'm considering replacing those terms with "Heavy", "Balanced", and "Light" weapons. Balanced is the only one I think sounds doofy, but I couldn't find a better synonym. (I haven't edited this one in yet)

On the pick: I think I figured what to do with it. I'll add a Hammer weapon to the simple category (exactly the same as the club. The clubs exist as because naturey classes can only use woods). Warhammers become martial weapons that, as a medium size weapon, are "1d8 or 2d6; 20x4 or 20x3; Piercing or Bludgeoning". It's the ol' hammer on one side, pick on the other not-quite-a-double-weapon weapon.

[angelfromanotherpin]

You could do longspears/lances as simple in two hands and martial in one hand. That way you can still have peasant spearmen, but also Spartan phalanxes and knightly lancers.

[TarkisFlux]

How about "Heavy", "Standard", and "Light"?

[Utterfail]

Standard! Durrr, synonym fail for me.

Thanks.