D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Size replaced by Handedness?
- Thread starter WizarDru
- Start date
Storm Raven
First Post
WizarDru said:
Having read about, my suspicion is that it is going to be more "realistic", but kind of messy.
The concept is this: a human longsword and a halfling greatsword should not be the same thing. A halfling should not have to use a human shortsword to get a one-handed weapon of a similarity what a human gets when using a longsword. And so on.
So what they have done is introduced the concept of weapons sized to their user. Now, you have a longsword meant for a human, and a scaled down longsword meant for a halfling. But the halfling longsword is not the same as a human shortsword. In point of fact, a halfling using a human shortsword will do so at a penalty, just as a human using a halfling greatsword will.
Now, while this may be technically more realistic, I tend to think that it is just needless complication. It seems like a lot more rules and mechanics for really a fairly trivial gain in realism. If having that level of detailed realism is worth it to you, you will likely find the revised rules handy. Personally, I find the system to be grainy enough in other ways that the added simplicity of the 3.0 weapon size rules is just fine.
drnuncheon
Explorer
I like it.
As someone else pointed out, I can look at a Huge weapon and know that it is meant to be wielded by a Huge creature, rather than having to think 'OK...this giant is Huge, so if I want him to use a greataxe two-handed, that's...dangit, what's after Huge? (go to PHB, look it up) Gargantuan, OK, so a gargantuan greataxe...'
It may not be simpler for the existing player, but I'll bet it's a lot easier to understand than the current system. 'OK, I'm size medium, so I can't use a size large weapon right? I can? But it has to be two hands?'
J
As someone else pointed out, I can look at a Huge weapon and know that it is meant to be wielded by a Huge creature, rather than having to think 'OK...this giant is Huge, so if I want him to use a greataxe two-handed, that's...dangit, what's after Huge? (go to PHB, look it up) Gargantuan, OK, so a gargantuan greataxe...'
It may not be simpler for the existing player, but I'll bet it's a lot easier to understand than the current system. 'OK, I'm size medium, so I can't use a size large weapon right? I can? But it has to be two hands?'
J
WizarDru
Adventurer
But they're not replacing the existing categories, are they? I mean, the size categories seemed consistent and logical. I'm all for making differentations in size for who the weapon was intended for (not being a fan of the one-size-fits-all ideas behind many things, like armor and magic items), but I don't want to carry it to extremes, either.
drnuncheon
Explorer
WizarDru said:
Weapons will still be classified as 'light', 'one-handed', or 'two-handed'. The size will reflect the size of the weilder.
So, in 3.0, a human's greataxe is a Large weapon (which means it must be weilded with two hands).
In 3.5, it is a Medium two-handed weapon.
J
DreamChaser
Explorer
So, if we have 3 categories of handedness:
light
one-handed
two-handed
I assume then that light weapons are 1 size below their wielder, one-handed are equal to their wielder, and two-handed are one above their wielder?
Am I off track?
DC
light
one-handed
two-handed
I assume then that light weapons are 1 size below their wielder, one-handed are equal to their wielder, and two-handed are one above their wielder?
Am I off track?
DC
Celebrim
Legend
One of the worst revisions of any game system ever.
They took an elegant system and replaced it with something much less usable, much less elegant, and which addresses typical RPG problems to a much less degree. Instead of a single size quantifier, we now have two or three size quantifiers and we have to write stupid sentences like 'You can use a one-handed weapon in two hands' or else suddenly you can't grip the haft of your battle axe and lay a heavy stroke. Instead of any weapon be usable by someone in some capacity, every weapon is now usable only by someone in particular. So I as a DM have to start leaving small sized items everywhere if I have any small sized PC's, and any small sized items my small sized NPC's have effectively have 'protection from medium sized PC's' on them
Plus a surprising number of rules depended on the notion of weapon size and will now have to be explained in a new way. For instance, what is the definition of a 'light weapon' now that all weapons usuable by a character of a given size are one of two sizes. Is a dagger descriptively different than a longsword or are they both just 'one handed weapons'. Can I use a longsword in a grapple now? Can I use a longsword as my off hand weapon? If not, does that mean that the notion of 'light weapon' is still around and if so how does taking the explicit sizes away actually simplify the system?
I've never met a player, much less a DM, that didn't know that Gargantuan was the size class bigger than Huge, or than Tiny was two size classes smaller than Medium. Its laid out in a visually evocative way in the Player's Handbook for crying out loud. But if that was the only problem, then one could of simply number them. Fine is 'size 1', diminutive is 'size 2', etc. Or you could learn the nine simple and descriptive words which mean 1, 2, 3...
Sheesh.
They took an elegant system and replaced it with something much less usable, much less elegant, and which addresses typical RPG problems to a much less degree. Instead of a single size quantifier, we now have two or three size quantifiers and we have to write stupid sentences like 'You can use a one-handed weapon in two hands' or else suddenly you can't grip the haft of your battle axe and lay a heavy stroke. Instead of any weapon be usable by someone in some capacity, every weapon is now usable only by someone in particular. So I as a DM have to start leaving small sized items everywhere if I have any small sized PC's, and any small sized items my small sized NPC's have effectively have 'protection from medium sized PC's' on them
Plus a surprising number of rules depended on the notion of weapon size and will now have to be explained in a new way. For instance, what is the definition of a 'light weapon' now that all weapons usuable by a character of a given size are one of two sizes. Is a dagger descriptively different than a longsword or are they both just 'one handed weapons'. Can I use a longsword in a grapple now? Can I use a longsword as my off hand weapon? If not, does that mean that the notion of 'light weapon' is still around and if so how does taking the explicit sizes away actually simplify the system?
I've never met a player, much less a DM, that didn't know that Gargantuan was the size class bigger than Huge, or than Tiny was two size classes smaller than Medium. Its laid out in a visually evocative way in the Player's Handbook for crying out loud. But if that was the only problem, then one could of simply number them. Fine is 'size 1', diminutive is 'size 2', etc. Or you could learn the nine simple and descriptive words which mean 1, 2, 3...
Sheesh.
