NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5607668" data-attributes="member: 22424">The 3.5e approach was more 'correct', but in practice I never ever managed to get together a group where everyone at the table understood it. That being the case, 3.0e wins every time. (Of course, 3.0e did have the quirk that a lot of weapons had to be listed as "quarterstaff, halfling", or whatever...)However, ultimately I think the big mistake in 3e (both versions) comes in trying to deal with all of this at all. It might well have been best to just ignore the size difference between 'small' and 'medium' versions of the weapons entirely (as "not worth worrying about"). For monsters and NPCs, assign them a damage independent of the weapons they weild.So, that Ogre carries "a massive sword and a huge shield", or "a huge club and shield", or "a two-handed club that might actually be a small tree", or whatever... but regardless, it has AC 20 and does 4d6+8 points of damage (or whatever). The players aren't ever going to see the behind-the-scenes math for all these things, and are unlikely to care at the finest level of detail anyway, so why go to the extra effort?(Of course, this raises the question of what happens when the PCs kill the Ogre and claim its sword/club//tree. But there, the DM just has to make a ruling - either it's a greatsword/greatclub, or it's just too big for the PCs to use effectively. Oh, and the enlarge spell should give a flat damage bonus - it shouldn't cause the weapon damage die to change - that's way too much effort!)</blockquote>

Verification