D&D 3E/3.5 Complaining about 3.5 weapon size rules

[BelXiror]

I think your missing that you CAN wield weapons not sized for you.

With a -2 to hit penalty. A halfling can use a human longsword 2 handed at a -2 to hit penalty, or a human short sword one handed.

As you said, using something the wrong size is a little difficult. Thats what the penalty represents.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But according to 3.0 rules, you couldn't since the size (huge) is two size catagories larger than yours.

He means a Large dagger, in 3E terminology.

The differences between a Large dagger and a Large greatsword, in 3E:

The dagger deals 2d6 19-20/x2 P damage.
The greatsword deals 2d6 19-20/x2 S damage.

The dagger is a Simple weapon.
The greatsword is a Martial weapon.

The dagger has a 10' range increment.
The greatsword has no range increment.

And the weight and cost are probably different.

In 3.5, the further differences between a Medium greatsword and a Huge dagger:

The dagger deals 1d8 19-20/x2 P/S damage.
The greatsword deals 2d6 19-20/x2 S damage.

A Medium creature takes a -4 penalty with the dagger.
A Medium creature takes no penalty with the greatsword.

It's far less attractive to the wizard in 3.5 to try and finesse the system.

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

My 3.0 wizard wields a greatsword with no penalty and no proficiency - because it's technically a huge dagger.

Nowhere in 3.0 was there an allowance for differently-sized weapons like that (pricing, availablity, etc.) There were damage stats in the DMG if the DM gave such a weapon to a monster. But providing such weapons to a PC was outside of the rules, a House Rule.

 

[Perun]

Another point, Halflings are small creatures, yes? So we're looking at a 3' to 4' creature. Human children of of ages 8 to 10 are at or around ths range. Children at these ages can (and some do) use knives, axes, shovels, and other implements designed for average adults. Yes, it is difficult for them, and they are not much of a threat if they use them as a weapon, but that would be because they would lack the musclature and experience of using it. Halfings and gnomes would have this.

Try about half that age. Human children of ages 3 to 5 years are about 3 to 4 feet tall. I've got a niece who's about 3-1/2 ft. tall, she's 4-1/2 years old, and she's quite tiny for her age (my two cousins' girls are taller, and about month or two younger).

It's very helpful to have a kid that age about, to really see how big a halfling actually is. And when you compare their hand size to yours, the 3.5 weapon sizes actually make much sence.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This is just a debate. Enter at your own risk though...

Maybe everyone out there can help me out. I don't understand why 3.5 actually has rules for 'small' weapons? A small longsword is, mechanically a shortsword, yes?? Why complicate matters?

Personally I can't think of any good reasons for complicating matters in this way - suggesting "realism" in different sizes of weapon when dealing with a game system that has generic hp and all *that* implies?

Seems like straining out gnats and swallowing a camel to me. I've never bothered using those particular new rules.

Cheers

 

[Hypersmurf]

There were damage stats in the DMG if the DM gave such a weapon to a monster.

The wizard beat up a monster and took it.

-Hyp.

 

[Shin Okada]

I largely prefer 3.5e rule as it will remove "large dagger" madness and also allow more options to small PC races (though it is still hard for a small character to be a good weapon wielder).

For the sake of reality, well, all I can say is "3.5e rule maybe slightly better". The diameter of grip may be largely different for each size category.

Some blades maybe removed from it's hilt (or shaft) and re-made into a blade of different size, or even into different kind of weapon. Historically, there were many Japanese Tachi which was once Naginata or Nagamaki. But those kind of special cases maybe dealt within each DM's judgements.

 

[shilsen]

Personally I can't think of any good reasons for complicating matters in this way - suggesting "realism" in different sizes of weapon when dealing with a game system that has generic hp and all *that* implies?

Seems like straining out gnats and swallowing a camel to me. I've never bothered using those particular new rules.

Cheers

I understand that perspective. As for me, it's just that the 3.5 rules for weapon sizing are so simple to understand and use that when I switched to 3.5 I just naturally started using them. Obviously your, and many other people's, mileage can and does vary.

 

[green slime]

The wizard beat up a monster and took it.

-Hyp.

Yeah, he beat the Huge-sized monster with his unarmed strike so he could take the Large dagger... I mean, wizards are martial artists, no serious wizard could ever pass on the Large dagger.

As to other comments by other posters:

It was possible to provide players with smaller versions of finneseable weapons in the old ruleset. It wasn't rocket science.

One of these days we'll make a rule against allowing the DM to exercise some common sense, because to do otherwise will invalidate the ruleset. And god knows, we can't possibly have a situation that the rules don't cover.

 

[smetzger]

All I have to say is that Sting was made by elves for an elf, yet Bilbo and Frodo had no problems picking it up and using it.