D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 weapon sizing: compelling reasons?

[francisca]

OK, I guess I had to pick on one thing in 3.5 that really annoys me. It's the new weapon sizing. So, I have been keeping with the 3.0 sizing, because, you know it makes me feel like *such* a rebel.

But, I'm wondering, is there any compelling reason to go ahead and move to the 3.5 weapon sizing rules? I have not personally run into any instances where it mattered, but I don;t cover every possible situation in my game.

So, chip in if you have any ideas.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Nightfall]

Not for me. A weapon you can increase as you see fit, depending on the size of the creature.

Example: My Infernal Sentinel Devil has a special benefit for using a Large warscepter. This means it's considered a Huge weapon even though the size isn't altered. Now does that mean I say it's a HUGE weapon? No, just increase the damage done, period.

That help?

 

[RithTheAwakener]

But, I'm wondering, is there any compelling reason to go ahead and move to the 3.5 weapon sizing rules? I have not personally run into any instances where it mattered, but I don;t cover every possible situation in my game.

Nope, no reason at all. Its terrible. No reason to switch. Not that I feel strongly on the subject or anything...

 

[Nightfall]

I certainly agree with you Rith. The change was very unnecessary.

 

[Ranger REG]

Well, it does allow the small folks to have weapons scaled to their size, including such thing as the bastard sword which they can use either one-handed or two-handed.

My concern is with reach weapons. I mean can a Halfling Longspear still have a reach of 10 feet?

 

[Nightfall]

Well, it does allow the small folks to have weapons scaled to their size, including such thing as the bastard sword which they can use either one-handed or two-handed.

My concern is with reach weapons. I mean can a Halfling Longspear still have a reach of 10 feet?

Screw halfling and gnomes. Big people need their weapons at regular sizes.

 

[Dark Jezter]

3.0 sizings are good for small- and medium-sized creatures, but when you have large creatures who need weapons, the 3.0 sizing rules can create confusion.

At first I thought that the 3.5e weapon sizing rules were stupid, but after using them for a while, I actually like them more than the 3.0 weapon sizing rules.

 

[RithTheAwakener]

All u gotta do is increase the die one up per size... d8 = d10...d12 = 2d6...
Although I could be wrong, thats how we do it.

 

[Nightfall]

All u gotta do is increase the die one up per size... d8 = d10...d12 = 2d6...
Although I could be wrong, thats how we do it.

No that's how I do as well Rith.

 

[Deadguy]

Ranger REG is right that the redesign of the weapon size rules is incomplete, since it doesn't address the effects of size on range and reach. Then again, I can understand why: players of Small PCs would cry bloody murder that WotC was further penalising their choice to play small characters.

For me the best reason to use the weapon size rules of 3.5E is simply to allow a clear and consistent description of weapons for use by all sizes of PCs and NPCs. No longer does the Halfling Fighter have to use a 'rebranded' shortsword or longsword; instead he gets to use the complete range, resized accordingly. And the DM can easily keep track of these sizes and their effects.

Is it absolutely necessary? Of course not. But do I think that it helps both verisimilitude and recordkpeeing? Yes. I don't think that there can be a compelling reason for this change; each DM will decide whther it helps his vision of the game.