D&D 3E/3.5 3E versus 3.5E: Weapon Size

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Where's that Conan picture that explains why I prefer the 3.5 weapon size rules? I know someone's got it somewhere.

 

[ThirdWizard]

3.5 because the barbarian/sorcerer gnome could then wield a greataxe.

 

[pawsplay]

3.5 handles the more usual cases better, and results in more consistent damage. It also avoided the 3.0 nomenclature, which had weapons at a different scale than creatures or objects.

OTOH, the 3.0 approach was better for loot, better reflected a world where most player races were similar in size (halflings being at the smaller end, and perhaps ogres as the higher end) similar enough to wield similar weapons, and probably more realistic for weapons with very simple hafts or grips. Is there really any difference between a Large club and a Medium greatclub?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I prefered 3.0 on this issue. Prior to 3.5 none of my players had ever complained about this as a problem. So it felt like they were offering a solution we didn't need.

 

[pawsplay]

It's not even clear it's realistic. Is there actually such a thing as a Small rapier, or a Large greatsword?

 

[Stoat]

I prefered 3.0 on this issue. Prior to 3.5 none of my players had ever complained about this as a problem. So it felt like they were offering a solution we didn't need.

I think that last sentence describes a lot of the changes between 3.0 and 3.5: not necessarily bad, but not significantly better, and just fiddly enough to make it hard to keep 'em all straight.

 

[jeffh]

OTOH, the 3.0 approach was [among other advantages] probably more realistic for weapons with very simple hafts or grips. Is there really any difference between a Large club and a Medium greatclub?

Funny you should mention this as an advantage of 3.0, because it's actually one of the reasons they switched. Your club/greatclub point is, I'm pretty sure, valid as far as it goes; but it doesn't generalize. A short sword (say a gladius) and a bastard sword (say the "longswords" I've practised with) differ in much more than just length and weight; they're balanced differently and intended to be used with different techniques (mainly thrusting, often from a stationary stance as part of a phalanx, versus slashing and always moving, respectively). Overall the "realism" point goes to 3.5, I would say, though you may have pointed out one counterexample to this.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[pawsplay]

Funny you should mention this as an advantage of 3.0, because it's actually one of the reasons they switched. Your club/greatclub point is, I'm pretty sure, valid as far as it goes; but it doesn't generalize. A short sword (say a gladius) and a bastard sword (say the "longswords" I've practised with) differ in much more than just length and weight; they're balanced differently and intended to be used with different techniques (mainly thrusting, often from a stationary stance as part of a phalanx, versus slashing and always moving, respectively). Overall the "realism" point goes to 3.5, I would say, though you may have pointed out one counterexample to this.

3.5 has the advantage when you at a shortsword versus a bastard sword. But if you compare a dagger to a short sword, or a hand axe to a battle axe, a spear to a long spear, 3.0's system looks a little better. I think a spear is probably going to be the thinnest, lightest thing for its length it can be and still be strong enough to flex rather than snap.

Ideally, I would like a situation where a human could use a halfling "longsword" as a shortsword, usually, but an ogre couldn't use it as a dagger. In theory, under 3.5, every halfling in Tolkien's books who used Sting was doing so at a -2 penalty to hit. Not only is it doubtful that such a difficulty was considered, but it's not clear that there is such a difficulty.

 

[pawsplay]

I picked 3e, but what I'd like to have picked was 1e.

All weapons have a size. In the case of some creatures, larger or smaller weapons might exist. Thus, a hill giant might have a huge club, or a pixie a tiny rapier, but for most purposes, you don't have to consider what size a longsword is "sized for" when you include it in a treasure hoard.

That said, for switching weapon sizes, Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved.


RC

This is basically my feeling.