Advice wanted: 3.5 weapon sizing

[Storyteller01]

Common 3.5 weapon sizing problems:

Dual weild two bastard swords - one of them a "halfling sized" bastard sword - and you get 1d10/1d8 but if you used a "human sized" longsword in your off hand you'de be further penalized.
Use "halfling sized" longspears to get a 1-handed reach weapon. You can dual weild these too for more hilarity.
The 3.5 lance, need I say more? To this day people still argue if it gets 1.5x str and 2-for-1 power attack when mounted and using it in one hand.

You forgot small Spiked Chains (w/ TWF even).

 

[Quasqueton]

One size larger than collosal.

And that would be what?

Quasqueton

 

[Storyteller01]

See Weapon Equivalencies variant rule in the DMG.

Also, the idea that a halfling rogue wielding a rapier has to use TWO HANDS and there is no halfling-sized rapier is just really, really dumb. Far stupider than the minor inconveniences the 3.5e rules create.

Dunno, always thought that those with a disadvantage come up with some pretty creative solutions. Had a player take an exotic weapon feat: Halfing Thinspear. Still had to use the rapier 2 hnded (he brought up some history on how usually only the last four inches of the blade was sharpened), but he had fun.

 

[Storyteller01]

And that would be what?

Quasqueton

Per the Epic Level Hand book, 'Colossal +'.

 

[DungeonMaster]

And that would be what?

Some books call it Collosal+ as the ultimate category but really who cares?
Eventually you're going to adding turtles all the way down if you know the story.

 

[DungeonMaster]

You forgot small Spiked Chains (w/ TWF even).

I know of them but I keep my ammo in reserve for the next round of arguments.
Naw, I'm not interested in starting a fight. This weapon sizes issue is just really irritating as it's very poorly implemented.
There are many more issues, not the least of which is the fact that if you randomly generate treasure you're never ever going to get halfling sized magical weapons.

 

[MerricB]

Not snarking, just an observation...

Isn't that essentially 3.0 rules in a different format?

No, actually they're not.

In 3e, a halfling rogue could wield a shortsword. This was the equivalent of a human wielding a longsword, but somehow the human rogue didn't have proficiency in longsword. Meanwhile, the halfling rogue couldn't wield a rapier... or a halfling-sized rapier. (A halfling rogue actually had no proficiency in rapier!)

In 3.5e with the weapon equivalancies, that "medium shortsword" becomes a "small longsword", meaning the 3.5e halfling rogue doesn't have proficiency with it.

Cheers!

 

[DungeonMaster]

Well by the book no rogues in 3.5 are proficient with the sap of all weapons so I'm kinda surprised you're irritated by the lack of direct equivalencies in rogue proficiencies moreso then this oversight.
The difference between a small rapier and a dagger is one point on the critical threat range, if it really matters the dagger can be thrown.

 

[MerricB]

Errata has been given. And I have the corrected PHB.

Did you have a point? Of course not.

 

[francisca]

So tell me your experiences with the 3.5 weapon sizing. Did you initially hate it but learn to love it? Like it but grow to loathe it? Or did experience confirm your initial reaction?

When I was DMing 3.5, we tossed it right out and kept going with the 3.0 weapon sizing rules. I think you can do the same. Just tell your players to use the medium sized columns in the chart, and have the players running Small races to ask you about their stuff. Then they should note the damage on their character sheet.