D&D 3.x [3.5] Weapon size and use

[DWARF]

Okay, so you're saying I can use a Halfling Longspear in one hand giving me 10 foot reach for a -2 penalty, then use a Medium Bastard Sword in the other hand, now with my 1 Feat 2-Weapon Fighting. Then, add in a high Dex and Combat Reflexes.... then get Hold-the-Line from Sword and Fist. Yeah, look at how over-powering that is. I have 10 foot and 5 foot reach, and anyone that tries to come up and attack me suffers and AoO, which if it hits they then need to make a Fortitude save vs. 10 + damage dealt or they can't move anymore. Then, imagine if 2 or 3 such people stood beside each other, overlapping their fields of reach. Then, anyone charging an opponent would elicit several AoO's, each of them with hold the line saves of Fort versus 10+damage. Then, if they do get stuck, the 3 guys get to do a full-attack and then take a 5 foot step back, making the attacker go through their porcupine death wall again..... having not even attacked.

And even if he did get through, they still have their other hand on Bastard Swords to cut him down... So yeah, I think Halflings with reach is stupid. If a Halfling warrior wants a 10-foot reach, let him take monkey-grip for a Longspear...

As well, the new size rules are clunky and definitely STOOPID. I mean, if people get all uppity with "how can a halfling use a Longsword 2-handed, why don't halflings make Greatswords for their size" then answer me this, why is this level of abstraction good? Why not break it up so each RACE has its own set of weapons? Why would Gnomes use halfling longswords, why not their own?

The answer? Because their close enough that the game would suffer if you went any more into it. It's abstract but works. And those are the same reasons my group is sticking with the current rules.

They may be abstract and have a halfling greatsword be the same as a human longsword, and be interchangeable; but how come humans and dwarves can wear the same armor interchangeably? How does Banded Mail designed for a 14 Str, 12 Str city guard fit a 20 Str, 16 Con Heroic Adventurer? The answer, it's just to long and difficult to worry about it...

 

[Hypersmurf]

If a Halfling warrior wants a 10-foot reach, let him take monkey-grip for a Longspear...

Monkey Grip does not allow a halfling to use a Longspear.

In 3,0, it would allow him to use a Heavy Lance one-handed, but not a Longspear two-handed.

-Hyp.

 

[DWARF]

Oh right, sorry, that's a house rule of mine. It was the sister-feat to Monkey Grip, BAB 5+, Str 15+, but instead it allowed the use of a weapon 2-sizes larger than you in 2-hands. You had to pick one when you got the feat, like Exotic Wpn Prof.

So yes, I did have Halflings able to use Longspears and Humans able to weild fullblades. Did it break rules or whatever? Who care, the people in my game have fun, and that's the point.

 

[Storm Raven]

In 95% of the cases, they're not, because you're going to be using weapons of your own size. In fact, in those 95% of the cases, they're simpler than 3e, because you don't have to do any comparing to figure out how many hands it is - it's right there on the table.

Its right there on the table in 3.0 too, just less complicated. All you do is look at the size of the weapon and you know what handedness it is for you. It is no more steps than figuring out what size the weapon is and looking up whether it is one-handed, two-handed, or light for you.

 

[trentonjoe]

???????

What is the difference between a MEDIUM short sword (19-20/x2) and a SMALL longsword (19-20/x2)?

 

[MadScientist]

A medium short sword is a slashing weapon, while a small longsword is a peircing weapon. That's about it.

 

[Tellerve]

Well one is a piercing weapon designed and built for a medium sized race, the other is a slashing weapon designed and built for a small sized race.


Tellerve

 

[sithramir]

Guys the weapons aren't split into large, medium, small in the 3.5 PHB. They are listed as light, one-handed, and two-handed.

Someone new to the game would understand what is meant because of this. The large/medium/small descriptors now onyl affect who the wielder of the weapon is meant to be.

Ie a medium longsword is a one-handed weapon. Therefore its 2-handed for a halfling and he suffered -2. Its very simple and better than the old rules because it is consistent for monsters as well now.

You keep thinking that a longsword is a "medium" weapon. That is no longer true. Its a "one-handed" weapon and if it says medium before it its for a human.

 

[DWARF]

No no, I totally get that. I just think it's bulky and stupid, and NEVER had a problem with the old size rules.

Sure, maybe it's more realistic, but the mechanics are starting to impede on players fun. I mean, now the Halfling Fighter won't use the magical longsword the party finds, as it would give him a -2, and who would want mechanically a +1 Sword over a +3 one?

Plus, now monsters loot becomes a lot less useful to players.

 

[Droogie]

Sure, maybe it's more realistic, but the mechanics are starting to impede on players fun. I mean, now the Halfling Fighter won't use the magical longsword the party finds, as it would give him a -2, and who would want mechanically a +1 Sword over a +3 one?

The variant rules in the DMG should take care of that problem, but it sucks that you should need a variant rule.

No, I'm with you, dude.

Before, all you needed was the weapon size and you could extrapolate all kinds of info from the weapon. Now you need an extra layer of info- its size catagory and its handedness.

Its no biggy---I understand the new rules fine. But in a revision, I thought we were trying to refine the rules?

Like Monte said, this was a step back, not a step forward.

Easy enough to Rule 0, but its annoying- I was hoping to retire my 3.0 books, but it looks like I'm gonna still need to lug'em around.