D&D 3E/3.5 Complaining about 3.5 weapon size rules

[The Souljourner]

As BelXiror said, and I said in another thread, it's not the length of the grip (although a halfling's longsword is going to have a handle way too small for an ogre to use as a dagger, or even a human to use as a shortsword).

How about your example of a large person using a medium sized two handed weapon? Translate this to a medium person using a small sized greatsword. The handle is going to be less than half an inch in diameter.... imagine trying to wield a normal sized longsword with a handle that's the width of a pencil. You couldn't do it... your fist isn't designed to close around something so small. The sword would wobble around because you wouldn't be able to hold it tight enough.

And don't forget... we're not talking short people tall people.... we're talking joe average (5'10") versus a halfling (3'). Do you know how small 3' tall is? A friend of mine has a 3 year old who is about 3' tall.

Three years old. Tiny little hands. They need tiny little handles. Not just length, but width.

The weapon sizes make total sense and don't really mess up the game at all.

-The Souljourner

 

[dcollins]

Wouldn't the samre premise count here? Or wouldn't it be the same if a human picked up a weapon made for a large creature. Why confuse the issue?

I agree with you. Monte Cook agrees with you.

This is one of those issues where an off-edition ruleset gets cluttered up by capitulating to the "there's an esoteric problem with realism!" crowd, complicating the gameplay for way too little in-game benefit.

 

[Saeviomagy]

My 3.0 wizard wields a greatsword with no penalty and no proficiency - because it's technically a huge dagger.

I expect all responses to this post to be along the lines of "but I'd never let a player get away with that".

Well, now the rules don't either.

 

[HeavyG]

The problem with that rule is not that it's not better than the old rule. It's that it resolves a really really minor issue and creates some confusion for people who used to play 3.0 (very little confusion, but still).

If they had used that rule for the original 3E, nobody would be complaining now.

Personally, I like the new rule better.

 

[FireLance]

My 3.0 wizard wields a greatsword with no penalty and no proficiency - because it's technically a huge dagger.

I'd never let a player get away with that.

The thing that bugged me most about the 3.0 weapon rules was that Small characters who would benefit the most from Weapon Finesse had only a very limited selection of weapons to use it with (the dagger and a few other exotic weapons, IIRC).

Now, halflings can use rapiers sized appropriately for them.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

My 3.0 wizard wields a greatsword with no penalty and no proficiency - because it's technically a huge dagger.

I expect all responses to this post to be along the lines of "but I'd never let a player get away with that".

Well, now the rules don't either.

As I understand it, that was the main reason for the change was it not? I think the introduction of larger PC races via savage species also put more strain on the 3.0 weapon size rules.

 

[Storyteller01]

So you're saying that a Small longsword can be treated as identical to a shortsword, as long as you take out the blade, rebalance the weapon, and reinsert the blade at a different angle?

By that token, I can say that a quarterstaff is really the same as a handaxe, as long as you chop off four or five feet, whittle the diameter down a bit, and add an axeblade...

-Hyp.

My point is that the difference between a slashing and piercing edged weapon is just a distribution of mass. Technically, an edged combat weapon is usually designed to do both, but is usually better at one type than another (in the real world a longsword is better at thrusting [ie piercing] attacks. A katana with a sweeping edge is better at slashing attacks.). Practitioners of both weapons are taught to use attacks that can do either type of damage. So, yes, a small longsword and a shrotsword may have a nearly identical mass distribution.

Another point, Halflings are small creatures, yes? So we're looking at a 3' to 4' creature. Human children of of ages 8 to 10 are at or around ths range. Children at these ages can (and some do) use knives, axes, shovels, and other implements designed for average adults. Yes, it is difficult for them, and they are not much of a threat if they use them as a weapon, but that would be because they would lack the musclature and experience of using it. Halfings and gnomes would have this.


Humans use weapons with an incredible range of grip widths. Slimmer grips (no more than a quater of an inch at its widest in some cases) are used to facilitate grip changes or choking up on the back of the blade to improve accuracy. One example is an Italian pocket/deuling knife.

A race may have to get used to a different weight/grip configuration, but its not impossible. I agree that a group of halflings or any other race may make weapons to their specs. However, this in no way limits them to just 'small' classed weapons, or that humans can only use 'human' style large weapons. All are intelligent and capable of adaption.

 

[Storyteller01]

My 3.0 wizard wields a greatsword with no penalty and no proficiency - because it's technically a huge dagger.

I expect all responses to this post to be along the lines of "but I'd never let a player get away with that".

Well, now the rules don't either.

But according to 3.0 rules, you couldn't since the size (huge) is two size catagories larger than yours.


That seems like an easy way to deal with weight distribution. A fighter is trained to use a large two handed sword. A wizard is not trained to use a Huge dagger...

 

[Spatula]

The 3.5 rules are more "realistic" when it comes to appropriating weapons used by big creatures, but I prefer the 3.0 rules because they are generally simpler. The 3.5 rules are also a big boon to the small guys, who now have a greater selection of martial & exotic weapons to choose from and can wield reach weapons like the longspear and the spiked chain. Now, is a halfling-sized longspear having 10' reach is more realistic or less? *shrug*

 

[Storyteller01]

The 3.5 rules are more "realistic" when it comes to appropriating weapons used by big creatures, but I prefer the 3.0 rules because they are generally simpler. The 3.5 rules are also a big boon to the small guys, who now have a greater selection of martial & exotic weapons to choose from and can wield reach weapons like the longspear and the spiked chain. Now, is a halfling-sized longspear having 10' reach is more realistic or less? *shrug*

Agreed on those points. Maybe we could come to a compromise that mixes the rules. Custom weapons or somesuch...?