D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Size replaced by Handedness?

[Benben]

I never stated that a short sword literally was a resized longsword or implied that weapon damage properties change depending on who weilds the weapon. You are putting words in my mouth.

My apologies then. You aren't the first person I've meet though who has called a shorts sword a Halfling longsword, and I wanted to point out the problems that has. I was using you as a springboard for previous encounters and that was unfair.

 

[Stalker0]

Alright, I'm going to try and reexplain it because I think a few people still don't quite understand the new system.

Every weapon has a type now, light/one handed/two handed

This NEVER changes no matter whose using it. So in the example above, the human is using a medium longsword (one handed weapon). He gives it to the gnome, its still a one handed weapon. The gnome weilds it with a -2 penalty because its one size too large for him.

The system tries to address that a greatsword isn't just a big longsword, they are fundamentally different in the way they are made and weilded.

 

[Stalker0]

Alright, I'm going to try and reexplain it because I think a few people still don't quite understand the new system.

Every weapon has a type now, light/one handed/two handed

This NEVER changes no matter whose using it. So in the example above, the human is using a medium longsword (one handed weapon). He gives it to the gnome, its still a one handed weapon. The gnome weilds it with a -2 penalty because its one size too large for him.

The system tries to address that a greatsword isn't just a big longsword, they are fundamentally different in the way they are made and weilded.

 

[splitinfinitude]

Stalker, I understand that. My concern is, does the gnome handed a non-prof penalty too? If the gnome has bastard sword proficiency, can it use the longsword one handed?
Is a large bastard sword equivelant to a medium two-handed sword? If so, what's a large longsword equivelant to, a medium bastard sword?

Also, IIRC, unless the gnome had monkeygrip, I think the gnome can't use the longsword one-handed - as a weapon one size larger, it requires 2 hands.

I understand the concept, I'm going to need to see how this plays out. This could end up being needlessly complicated, since the old system just needed a little bit of common sensing to work perfectly.

 

[AuraSeer]

Stalker, I understand that. My concern is, does the gnome handed a non-prof penalty too? If the gnome has bastard sword proficiency, can it use the longsword one handed?

My understanding is that the longsword always remains a one-handed weapon, even when wielded by a smaller character. Assuming the gnome is proficient with longswords, he can use it without nonproficiency penalty.

Is a large bastard sword equivelant to a medium two-handed sword? If so, wh/at's a large longsword equivelant to, a medium bastard sword?

Weapon equivalencies are reportedly a variant rule after the revision. If you want to use them, they're explained in the DMG. If you don't, then a Large longsword is only a Large longsword, not a Medium anything.

Incidentally, I wouldn't expect the bastard sword to be an easy example. In 3.0 it's listed as a Medium weapon, but acts like a Large weapon, since Medium characters must wield it in two hands. (For characters with EWP, it becomes a regular Medium exotic weapon.) That's an exception to the regular handedness rules, so it's bound to be a little less sensible than the standard case.

Also, IIRC, unless the gnome had monkeygrip, I think the gnome can't use the longsword one-handed - as a weapon one size larger, it requires 2 hands.

That's only in 3E, though. In the new version, size reportedly has nothing to do with handedness. A longsword is one-handed for anyone who can wield it, even a gnome.

The Monkey Grip feat will clearly need to be rewritten. Perhaps it will allow that gnome to wield a Medium longsword without the size penalty. We don't know yet.

I understand the concept, I'm going to need to see how this plays out. This could end up being needlessly complicated, since the old system just needed a little bit of common sensing to work perfectly.

The problem with "common sense" is that it's not really very common. What one DM sees as the sensible interpretation may be the complete opposite of what another sees. Witness the arguments about Boccob's Blessed Book.

 

[Tar-Edhel]

I understand the concept, I'm going to need to see how this plays out. This could end up being needlessly complicated, since the old system just needed a little bit of common sensing to work perfectly.

That's my feeling as well. With the old system, as a DM, I could give magical weapons that were usable by everyone. Now, I'll need to specify a size that will restrict its usability in the party.

The new system is more realistic, I do agree about that. But I don't need that much realism.

But since 3.5 will force me to redesign completely my character, I may not be as objectice as I should about anything 3.5 You've been warned

 

[MadScientist]

So when you get WF and WS is it for "medium" longsword or just longsword? Do light weapons stay light even if they are a larger size category?

Also, are size penalties cumulative or is their a cut-off, i.e if a gnome wants to weild a large longsword does he do so at a -4 penalty or is it just impossible?

 

[splitinfinitude]

Auraseer, I'm not trying to be snippy, but I don't see any point in debating what the rules are at this point, until we have the books it's kind of silly.

Proficiencies, feats, etc. all are based on what a weapon "is" under the rules, and it gets really complicated when the same physical thing (say, a sharp, double-edged, straight piece of metal about 6 inches long) is called something different depending on the size of the wielder.

I just see these issues, and hope that they are, in whole, not overly complicated in 3.5. We'll have to wait and play it out and hopefully this system will be no less cumbersome than 3.0, and have resolved those few annoying issues.

Fortunately, only one more week!

 

[EricNoah]

I wanted to point out that the 3.5 DMG contains a variant rule that essentially allows you to do what we were doing with 3.0. Includes a chart so you can see that a longsword made for a Medium character can be treated as a greatsword made for a Small character with no penalty.

Also the 3.5 PH does explain that "medium longsword" now means "longsword for a medium character" but it doesn't mean the sword is "medium" sized; also explains the relationship between light/one-handed/two-handed and weapon size.

I agree that for those who used the old way it does seem complicated. I think for those just tuning in though it might be as easy if not easier to master.

 

[mmu1]

What I'm interested in is how this affects the size of damage dice for the weapons designed for small characters.

Before, a club, which is size small, does 1d6 for a human or a halfling, because they can both wield it one handed. Same with a dagger, or with a shortsword.

What happens to someone like a halfling rogue who's proficient with shortswords, but now has to use a halfling shortsword? Does it still do d6 damage, or does it drop to d4? Can anyone who already has a PHB comment on this?