Advice wanted: 3.5 weapon sizing

[Storyteller01]

I love the 3.5 weapon size rules and consider them almost flatly superior.

One of the reasons I consider them an absolutely vital addition to the game is that they finally allow for 1-handed reach weapons. Call the 'halfling longspear' trick an exploit, but "stick and board" as opposed to "sword and board" was and should be in-game a valid fighting style - one of the best, in fact.

It is, you just don't get reach with the short spear. And to be honest, there's no reason why that style is better than another. It was widely used in a number of cultures, but it isn't the end all/be all of combat.

 

[rushlight]

You guys that have halflings running around using giant's weapons have some halflings with freakishly large hands. I never imagined a world where every creature on the planet with hands had the *exact* same size hands. That's a bit odd, don't you think?

I can't imagine a 30 foot creature's handspan being equivalent to a 3 foot creature. But, I suppose if the giant's dagger is the same as a halfling greatsword, that's what you've got. Let's not forget that regardless of the weapon type, the handles are *all* nearly identical in size. A real-life dagger's hilt is the exact same size as a real-life greatsword's hilt. Because they all go in the same 7"-8" long (average) human hand.

I'd love to see pictures of your halflings with 37.5" long hands! Since a 30' giant is roughly 500% larger than a 6' human, you can assume that his hand will be 37.5 inches long, which is 500% larger than a human hand. Now, I would assume that a 3 foot halfling would have on average a 3.75" handspan.

But if you've got halflings using giant daggers as greatswords, you've either got some giants with really small hands, or halflings with hands the length of their own bodies! Or you have giants running around conviently using daggers with hilts equal to a toothpick for you and I.

So in the end, the 3e rules were dumb, and the 3.5 rules are less dumb.

 

[S'mon]

As far as my game goes, I let the larger Small creatures like goblins use light human weapons without penalty - eg a large goblin can fire a human light crossbow but a kobold needs to use a kobold-sized crossbow. A large goblin can use a human-size shortsword but a kobold can only use a human-sized dagger. I'd let a halfling use a human dagger without penalty also. Kobolds & halflings can use human hand axes (1d6) 2-handed without penalty, etc. Basically GM's judgement.

 

[ARandomGod]

Since a 30' giant is roughly 500% larger than a 6' human, you can assume that his hand will be 37.5 inches long, which is 500% larger than a human hand. Now, I would assume that a 3 foot halfling would have on average a 3.75" handspan.

Remember that if you look too closely at this particular fantasy world, attempting to illuminate it with the light of "science", it will fall apart.

The most notable issue I'm noting here is that, scientifically speaking, a humanoid cannot be 500% larger than a 6' human. It couldn't breathe, let alone swing a sword.

On the other hand, you can see today pictures of humanoids under 4' tall, and their hands, when they are adults, are roughly the same size as a 6' human's...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Trust me...

Visit Wilt Chaimberlain's house (custom built for the 7-1 man) in Los Angeles, and you'll see what a slight difference in scale can mean.

Someone of 5'5" height or so will do ok, but not great, getting around, reaching the cabinets, etc. If you're 5' or less- forget it. The counters are too high, etc.

So while a halfling might use a normal human's shortsword, using a shortsword for someone over 7'5" would be near impossible. The grip would be too large, the balance would be way off.

I think someone else mentioned it after my dagger/model example: the handle on a dagger and a 1 handed sword are roughly the same size, but the blades are very different. Now imagine that same dagger and sword scaled up or down. The grip will be too short or too long for efficient use.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Yet you ignore that the 3.5 rogue wasn't given proficiency in *sap* and all the above nonsense of one-handed reach weapons and lances.
I don't know Merric, I think it's you that don't have a point.

I've yet to see a copy of the 3.5 phb that doesn't have sap on the list of rogue proficiencies, so the errata'd copy is a lot more common than you seem to think.

 

[Remathilis]

3.5 rules are better. They assume that small races MAKE weapons for thier races, rather than bum weapons off elves and humans.

Never had a problem with it, but I rarely see alot of small PCs anyway...

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I've yet to see a copy of the 3.5 phb that doesn't have sap on the list of rogue proficiencies, so the errata'd copy is a lot more common than you seem to think.

The first printing at least does skip sap. Mind you it does mention that a sap works with sneak attack... And it is in the errata.

The Auld Grump, until this I had not even bothered looking it up, just assumed that they had the proficiency...

 

[Vocenoctum]

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.

I find it odd that people get so worked up about something that makes no impact in the game really. Most adventurer's are Medium sized. Abusing the size rules in 3.5 is no different than abusing the rules in 3e. I'm not sure why a DM would go "you can't use a giant's dagger as a mage!" but not go "you can't use a Small weapon that way!"
The rules were pretty clear in both instances, so if the DM has to adjudicate one, he has to decide on the other.

I personally like 3.5's rules because it presents more options for Small characters.

 

[rushlight]

Remember that if you look too closely at this particular fantasy world, attempting to illuminate it with the light of "science", it will fall apart.

The most notable issue I'm noting here is that, scientifically speaking, a humanoid cannot be 500% larger than a 6' human. It couldn't breathe, let alone swing a sword.

On the other hand, you can see today pictures of humanoids under 4' tall, and their hands, when they are adults, are roughly the same size as a 6' human's...

Well, to an extent you're right. Trying to apply logical science to a game usually will cause more problems than it's worth. However, you must apply SOME logic to the game, otherwise it's just a random jumble of crap.

So, big things have big hands. Big hands need big tools. Small things have small hands. Small hands need small tools. Big tools do not fit small hands. That's all the logic you need. If you throw that out, who's to say your dimuniative pixie rogue can't use the colossal+ dragon's greatsword? Once you throw out basic logic, you've just thrown out the entire game.

Big hands, big tools - small hands, small tools. It's not a scientific equation, it's just common sense.