D&D 3.x 3.5 weapon sizing: compelling reasons?


log in or register to remove this ad



I can only use 3.5 SRD because I don't have the new books, therefore I don't know about the variant rule for weapon equivalencies in the 3.5 DMG. Has anybody used it? I have the idea that if you use it you are basically completely compatible with 3.0 plus you also have small bastard swords, large rapiers and colossal slings if you wish.
 

I was a tad confused at the change at first, but like Dark Jezter says, once I started using it, I found it to be an improvement. I think it's a boon more for DMs than PCs, but ultimately it doesn't change much from the player's side, and generates benefits all around. Is it necessary? Not really, but it is useful, especially when routinely having to deal with small, large and huge creatures with appropriately sized weapons. I'm with Deadguy, essentially.
 



RithTheAwakener said:
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.

d12 -> 2d6 is wrong since those two are treated as equivalent. Either of those should actually go to 2d8.

(The actual scaling rules are in the books - the MM I believe - but for some reason they dislike d10s and d12s...
 


Quasqueton said:
In 3.0, what size is a colossal creature's greatsword?

Super-colossal. :cool:

So: in 3.5, does a halfling longspear have reach? When you use a longsword in two hands, is it a one-handed weapon or a two handed weapon for power attack purposes?
 

Remove ads

Top