Realism vs Simplicity in 3.5E

[AdvntrGuy]

One day, you will understand that "as DM, I ban this" is irrelevant to my-ruleset-is-bigger-than-yours wars.

So, why can a cleric use a 2d6 Large mace, but not a 1d10 greatclub?

Firstly, I'm just trying to participate in the conversation here, so ease up on the condescending attitiude. I'm not really having a war. I don't think you're reading my posts closely enough. I'm not the DM of our group. WE adopted these rules together. I happen to agree with them.

I'm offering what we worked out for the discussion, supposing that if we were on the design team, adding the size limitations would have worked better than adding handedness to the core rules.

The cleric can use the 2d6 Large Light Mace two-handed because he has the Simple Weapon Proficiency and the light mace is a simple weapon. He cannot use the 1d10 Large Greatclub, because it is a Martial weapon under rules as written (3.0). You may not like the simple versus martial classifications, but that didn't really change between 3.0 and 3.5. I'd be all for making a Greatclub a simple weapon.

AG

 

[Bauglir]

While I'm all for scaling weapons, I think that different sized versions of a given weapon should come under different proficiencies, and may well even be a different category of weapon. ie. A large sized light mace could not be used effectively with a light mace weapon proficiency, much as how a greatsword cannot be used effectively with a shortsword proficiency.

The large sized mace doing 2d6/x2 is borderline imo. It's either a slightly weak martial weapon (compared to the greatsword; the greatclub is imo very poor, and should be classed a simple weapon) or a strong simple weapon.

I think the most elegant solution would be to make the greatclub a simple weapon, and add the 'Greatmace' as a martial weapon in its place.

Of course the more of this kind of thing you do, the further you move away from RAW 3.0 weapons, but I guess that's what I like about the system - modifying it to suit your needs is very easy, much more so than with the 3.5e system.

 

[The Gryphon]

The 3.5 weapon rules were already partially in effect in the initial 3.0 rules. Just look at the martial arts weapons, there are specific weapons for halfling (i.e. small) sized wielders. All 3.5 has done is make this a consistant ruling regarding all weapons.

This allows all races to use the same weapons varied for size thus giving no race a superior weapon form (i.e. superior critical range or multiplier). The update also replaced the 5 melee weapon sizes (unarmed, tiny, small, medium, large) covered in the 3.0 PHB with 4 relative encumbrances (unarmed, light [covers tiny and small], one-handed, two-handed) which are equally applicable for all creature sizes, and removed ranged weapon sizes all together.

The sizes were instead added to the weapon name so a halfling rogue can use a small rapier (as was done in 3.0 with the martial arts weapons), and an ogre rogue can use a large rapier without penalty. So as this affects my human rogue, he can wield the large rapier taken from the ogre, but because it is a large weapon and was one-handed I have to use it two-handed and take a -2 penalty. Same system for the small rapier except it is a light weapon for my human. Make up your own reasons for this penalty, my favourites are, because the grip is larger, the weapon isn't balanced exactly the same...but the method of attack is the same thus a proficient character can use it.

These changes seem to be primarily designed to help the novice players as they can just look at the table and know how they can use the weapon at a glance. Also as has been said before the weapon name stays the same, just the size listing differs.

Just some food for thought.

 

[MerricB]

While I'm all for scaling weapons, I think that different sized versions of a given weapon should come under different proficiencies, and may well even be a different category of weapon. ie. A large sized light mace could not be used effectively with a light mace weapon proficiency, much as how a greatsword cannot be used effectively with a shortsword proficiency.

Indeed.

The trouble is in encapsulating that simply in the rules.

Cheers!

 

[Umbran]

You may not like the simple versus martial classifications, but that didn't really change between 3.0 and 3.5. I'd be all for making a Greatclub a simple weapon.

More is the question - when devising your rules, why dd you not look at the existing weapons and say, "Hm. The rules seem to not want the basic cleric to use a two-handed bashing weapon that does this much damage. Perhaps we should not say that a larger version of a weapon should still be considered a simple weapon..."?

Think about it - a light mace is used in one hand by a medium sized character. Make it bigger, and it really can't be effectively used in the same manner. If it isn't used the same, why assume that it should be covered by the same proficiency?

While the guys who wrote the book weren't perfect by any means, it is perhaps a good idea to thik over why they made certain decisions before discarding them. Perhaps the greatclub (and by extension, any two-handed bashing weapon that does similar damage) is a martial weapon for a good reason?

 

[takyris]

Hey, c'mon, he's just trying to participate in the conversation. I don't think you're reading his posts closely enough.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be dropping War from my cleric's domain list and taking something like Trickery, and I'll be hitting up the next Titan or Storm Giant the party finds for a Large dagger that does 2d6, 19-20/x2, and is classified as a simple weapon. Oh, and which has a throwing range of 10 feet.