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

[mearls]

Please come back with a point.

Hi there,

We're here to have an intelligent discussion about the rules, and why they work, and why they don't. Merric, and others, have posted some good points about why they like the rules and why they work. I'm posting my own experiences and ideas on them, and talking about why they don't work for me. I really don't know who you are, and to be honest I don't care to know who you are. What I do know is that this was an interesting, useful thread, until your post.

What I suggest is that if you don't think I'm posting anything worth reading, maybe you should stop reading it. If you think I'm wrong, or I'm not interpreting the rules correctly, then I'm all ears. After all, that's why we have discussion boards: To discuss things.

Thanks!

Edit: To address the points you made after editing your message:

1. Exotic Weapons: In some ways, the new rules are even more problematic with these. With the scaling rules, you now give spiked chain users the option to take a -2 penalty to hit and a slight reduction in damage (which becomes less relevant as characters gain levels) to carry a shield or to use two weapons at once.

2. The Space Issue: The tables would consume maybe six pages.

 

[jasamcarl]

Hi there,

We're here to have an intelligent discussion about the rules, and why they work, and why they don't. Merric, and others, have posted some good points about why they like the rules and why they work. I'm posting my own experiences and ideas on them, and talking about why they don't work for me. I really don't know who you are, and to be honest I don't care to know who you are. What I do know is that this was an interesting, useful thread, until your post.

What I suggest is that if you don't think I'm posting anything worth reading, maybe you should stop reading it. If you think I'm wrong, or I'm not interpreting the rules correctly, then I'm all ears. After all, that's why we have discussion boards: To discuss things.

Thanks!

Hi there. You don't know who i am? That just kills me. I mean, that is why i come on to a message board..to talk to people who know who I am.

But that aside, your points are mostly bogus. Again, they have everything to do with realism and very little to do with balance/completness, etc. There are a few obvious ommissions, but those would be easy enough to clarify. Let me put in a sarcastic mock quote to clarify my thinking:

"Spell X didn't have a range increment listed!!!! Man, if we didn't have spells I wouldn't have do all thise guesswork!!!"

 

[Norfleet]

The real problem with weapon sizing isn't the entire small dagger, large dagger nonsense. All of this can be easily rectified with some COMMON SENSE, something that 3/3.5E players seem all too willing to discard in favor of a blind rule reading.

The problem is that sizing makes no sense for a specific class of weapon: Spears. Spears aren't large, small, etc. They're pointy things on sticks. The thickness of the stick involved has nothing to do with the size of the wielder, it has to do with how long the stick is: A "small" longspear is a nonsensical construct: The "grip theory" of weapon sizing makes no sense when applied to such a weapon because if you made it thinner, so that it would fit a halfling hand, it would BREAK! The granularity of the reach rules only further exacerbates the problem. A weapon either has a 0', 5' reach, 10' reach, 15', etc. There are no 6' reach weapons, or 8' reach weapon, or 2' reach weapons, or 6" reach weapons. It brings us back to the problem of having cats attacking a rat. Obviously, this granularity is the inherent flaw in the system. Nobody would care terribly much if regular spears had a reach of 7', and halfling "longspears" also had a reach of about 7'. Since the system does NOT really scale with respect to size, trying to scale the WEAPONS with respect to size simply creates more problems than it solves. The 3.5E system isn't wrong, it's actually a step in the right direction.....but it's a bandaid being slapped on a sucking chest wound.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I wouldn't call the rules on p. 113 of the PHB all that clear, primarily because they don't address the issue of what happens when a creature uses a weapon of the inappropriate size.

The mention of reach on p. 137 doesn't mention anything about weapon sizes.

The diagrams on pages 308 - 310 of the DMG show a creature's threatened area with a reach weapon, but again it doesn't mention anything about what happens when a creature uses a weapon of the inappropriate size.

As far as I can tell, a reach weapon doubles a creature's reach regardless of its size. In essence, a reach weapon that is one size category too small for you could be a pretty good deal, since it lets you use a shield and gain reach. Let's ignore the wonkiness that reach weapons now seem to grow or shrink to match their user's size.

Logically, the reach weapon of innappropriate size would increase the wielders reach by the base of the creatures size for which it's made.

So, a Huge reach weapon would add 15' to reach instead of 5'. A Large would add 10'.

The issue however, isn't core, since you can't wield a reach weapon one handed, you'd never be able to wield a larger reach weapon than your size.

except whips, they're screwed.

A small reach weapon in the hand of a medium would give the same reach. The only problem with the rules would be if a small or medium guy wanted to use a tiny reach weapon.

There's always Monkey Grip issues, but they'd fall under my "logically..." line above IMO.

 

[shadow]

I'm just glad that the hobbits weren't using 3.5e rules in the Lord of the Rings. I can't imagine Frodo getting a -2 penalty using Sting because it was the wrong size category!

 

[Vocenoctum]

Again, I *do* see why it's useful, and I understand *how* the rules work, I simply don't understand *why* WotC chose to make them work in the way that they do when it is so needlessly redundant (and does *not* noticeably improve on the old system, especially on such things as light weapons... I am a medium-sized character... is a Huge Dagger (requiring 2 hands of me) still a "light weapon?" What about a Fine Greatsword (which I can hold in 2 fingers)? Needless complexity to add the "light" quality to weapons when the old way, "if it's a size smaller, it's light" worked fine).

You can't wield something that goes "off the chart" as it were. Page 113 says size changes still change the "light, one hand, two hand" function of the weapon. So a Large Longsword is one handed for Large, two handed for medium, unusable for Small.

The added complexity there is no greater than when a small (or large) character in 3e wanted to have a weapon of some variety. Off hand weapons were horrible, unless the DM let you scale down.

I don't think the 3.5 rules are revolutionary, but I do like them better. I don't really see why people are attached to the 3e rules, unless you're a gnome hater.
You're a gnome hater, aren't you!?!


Wizards changed them, because they thought the small improvement (get it, small... more weapons for small people...) was worthwhile, and they didn't see the old system as a Sacred Cow worth saving.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I'm just glad that the hobbits weren't using 3.5e rules in the Lord of the Rings. I can't imagine Frodo getting a -2 penalty using Sting because it was the wrong size category!

The blades were all +2, so they equaled out.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Even when they did SS and the A&EG, they still failed to handle the proficiency problem! Can a wizard wield a Large dagger?

And how exactly has 3.5 fixed that?

Can a wizard wield a Huge dagger in 3.5 at a -4 penalty for size, or at a -8 penalty for size and non-proficiency?

-Hyp.

 

[MerricB]

And how exactly has 3.5 fixed that?

Can a wizard wield a Huge dagger in 3.5 at a -4 penalty for size, or at a -8 penalty for size and non-proficiency?

-Hyp.

A Wizard has proficiency in Dagger. He can wield all daggers regardless of size.

The Huge Dagger is two sizes larger than the Medium Dagger he is used to; so -4 penalty to hit. (The same as being unproficient in it, notice).

The Huge Dagger is a d8, Piercing, crit 19-20/x2 weapon, two-handed in the hands of a human wizard.

Of course, there are anomalies like he can use Improved Critical and Weapon Focus with the Huge Dagger, but they're not that bad. The rules need to be amended (actually stated) for what happens when he tries to throw that dagger.

Alternatively, the DM can rule by the variant rules that a Huge Dagger is a Medium Longsword and must be played as such.

Cheers!

 

[EricNoah]

Hey folks!

a) let's not turn this argument into a fight, please.

and b) this definitely belongs in the Rules forum. And awaaaay we go!