Advice wanted: 3.5 weapon sizing

[Storyteller01]

It is rules-heavy. The idea that Storyteller proposed above is kind of the opposite extreme, and both have their supporters.

What he said. Do what works for you.

 

[DungeonMaster]

He can still throw it, it still has the better crit, he doesn't need to take any feats. He is profficient with any dagger form the size of a pin to the size of a house, provided he can somehow wield it.

This hasn't changed. He just gets a size penalty in 3.5.

Except the 3.0 rules didn't make any sense. So that's a nice strawman.

Does dual weilding a bastard sword and a halfling bastard sword make more sense than dual weilding a bastard sword and a longsword?
The rules explicitely mention

Dungeonmaster, you've admitted to not reading the rules in other threads, and your idea of dual-wielding halfling longspears being somehow an unbridled powerhouse showcases your lack of knowledge and extensive use of hyperbole in this scenario.

Er... no. I've admited to not owning the 3.5 books but I know the 3rd edition rules very well. I also have very good knowledge of the 3.5 rules and I'm not claiming it's a powerhouse combo. I'm saying it's "silly" just like, I hope, you think a wizard claiming a giant's dagger is not a "powerhouse combo".

I don't understand where you're coming from here. Are you saying that weapon size isn't an issue once you've accepted fighter weapon proficiencies? Fill me in on these leaps of logic?

I think others have done a good job of that. Yes, basically weapon size isn't an issue when you have a fighter using everything from a tiny dagger to a composite longbow to a guisarm in an 18 second interval without problem. It isn't a huge leap of logic.

 

[DungeonMaster]

In reality, a person who knows fencing is going ot have a hard time applying the same principles to a spear or throwing a punch or getting in a knife-fight. The weapon rules emulate this reality by using different weapon proficiencies: unarmed strike, rapier, and dagger are all seperate weapons. Real life gets even more grainy than this, in that someone who knows a fencing rapier will need more training before they can know how to use a real one. Someone who knows how to punch a man won't nessecarily know how to use a glaive, even though it's all the same kind of motion.

I've trained for 8 years now in using a sword. Specifically 3-4 times a week I use either boken, a sword or shinai. These are in many ways, very different weapons. The sword I own is in particular better as a one-handed sword and I can use it two-handed, the handle is not as long as I would like. I've picked up sabres, foils and epee. I can pick up a bokken, or sword and immediately tell you the "balance" and how to use it - and will adjust my cut accordingly.
In fact if you give me any stick, or stick-like object, or sword like object I can tell you how I would use it most effectively in combat.
This is the very concept of proficiency. Now either you agree that people can do this - or you don't. If you do you have an irreconcilable problem with the 3.5 weapon system. The size penalty makes no sense at all within the broad categorizations of weapons that a standard fighter is proficient in. It is simply absurd that you can go from a sickle to a shortsword to a greatsword without problem but a halfling longsword "dulls your fighting ability".

 

[DungeonMaster]

How much different is a bastard sword than a longsword that it requires a feat to use [in one hand]? A kama and siangham also require a feat to use, yet they are as close to a sickle and dagger as a shortsword in a human's hand and a "longsword" in a halfling's hand.

That's weather or not the weapons are correctly categorized and to be honest I don't think they are.

And for the record pokemounts are very very silly.

 

[MerricB]

Thanks for the help. Now, tell me what you think about the pokemounts...

Depends utterly on the campaign you're playing. If you're in a dungeon-heavy campaign, the pokemounts are definitely worthwhile.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

The size penalty makes no sense at all within the broad categorizations of weapons that a standard fighter is proficient in. It is simply absurd that you can go from a sickle to a shortsword to a greatsword without problem but a halfling longsword "dulls your fighting ability".

Weapon Equivalencies. DMG v.3.5 page 27.

 

[Li Shenron]

I will soon be starting a 3.5 campaign with mostly newbies. One player has played in some PbP and a brief (1 or 2 sessions) d20 Call of Cthulhu game. One or two others have only the aforementioned CoC campaign under their belts, and the rest are completely new to non-videogame RPGs. To me, it makes sense to have very few house rules so as not to confuse them. So as much as I don't like the 3.5 weapon sizing, I find myself thinking it may be easier on the newbs if I use it. And maybe I'll find it's not so bad. (I haven't actually played a game with 3.5 weapon-sizing yet. My groups have either played 3.0 or played 3.5 with the 3.0 weapon sizing.)

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?

I have played both 3.0 and 3.5 adventures and used both rules for weapon sizing.

IMXP the impact of the different weapon sizing rules on the gaming experience is zero .

I am almost indifferent among the two, and given what I said before, I won't even tell you which of the two I (slightly) prefer

My suggestion is to play with the ruleset of the players' PHBs, or your own, and use the weapon sizing rules that come with it.

 

[Storyteller01]

Thanks for the help. Now, tell me what you think about the pokemounts...

Pokemounts??

A new tweak on the 3.5 rules?

 

[Plane Sailing]

In a game with so much abstraction already, it seems like an odd place to start getting specific.

That was precisely my feeling. I've not used the 3.5 rules for weapon sizing and I've never missed them. Basically the 3.0 rules have always been sufficient, and thanks to 'common sense' I've not had any PCs saying "I want to take and use the giants waraxe" etc.

Considering all the other stuff that is abstracted out, I can't see any good reason for the rules getting all picky over this minor issue. I don't think it will give you any problems in your campaign if you ignore it.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I must confess that only I ever attempted to get some abuse out of 3.0's weapon sizing out of our group, but looking back I wonder how I did it?

One system is an utter shambles while the revision has it pretty much sorted.