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

[Shin Okada]

How you can be sure that they are not taking -2 penalty? Sting is a very strong magic sword. It maybe better than any mundane swords even with that penalty. And, there is no sword specially made for hobbit appear in the story (they are more pieaceful race than small races in D&D), so you can't compare.

 

[Bauglir]

Yeah, he beat the Huge-sized monster with his unarmed strike so he could take the Large dagger... I mean, wizards are martial artists, no serious wizard could ever pass on the Large dagger.

They're giving wizards spells and everything these days.

There are clear groups of weapons in the 3.0 weapon table. I interpreted weapon sizing in terms of these groups.

For example: 'sword' weapons: dagger, shortsword, longsword, greatsword.

Which of these weapons any given sword would be was defined by the size of the weapon compared to the size of the wielder.

For example, an ogre's shortsword would be a human's longsword, or a halfling's greatsword. (in terms of damage type and proficiency)

Not realistic perhaps but it seemed to work well enough.

 

[The Souljourner]

It was possible to provide players with smaller versions of finneseable weapons in the old ruleset. It wasn't rocket science.

Yeah... I know... and that's EXACTLY what 3.5 did. It just did all the math for you. BAM! Tons of small weapons.

I honestly don't understand what the problem is that people have with weapon sizes. It's not complicated, it makes sense, it doesn't interfere with gameplay, and it fixes a *lot* of problems.

How were you outfitting giants in 3.0? Surely they weren't all walking around with greatswords-as-daggers? You probably extrapolated custom huge sized clubs, swords, etc. Well, in 3.5, the work's been done for you.

How were you outfitting small races in 3.0? All they could use were shortswords and daggers, pretty much. Kinda sucky, no? Can't use all those neat exotic weapons, or just the odd martial ones, like rapiers and lances.... so you probably extrapolated out some custom small sized weapons for those guys. Well, in 3.5, the work's been done for you.

-The Souljourner

 

[FireLance]

It was possible to provide players with smaller versions of finneseable weapons in the old ruleset. It wasn't rocket science.

Yes, it was possible, but I don't think it was often done. Not all DMs are experienced or confident enough to tinker with the rules.

Then there was that additional quirk of 3.0e that made the kukri a Tiny exotic weapon. So, if I invent a halfling rapier, which does the same amount of damage and has the same threat range as a kukri, but does piercing instead of slashing damage, would it be a martial or exotic weapon? Fortunately, the kukri was also re-classified as a martial weapon in 3.5e, which cleared up a lot of issues.

The new weapon rules do two things. One, by introducing the concept of sizing weapons to the user, it greatly increased the scope of weapon options for Small characters (without adding to the DM's work). Two, by introducing simple rules for scaling the weapon damage to size, it made it easier to introduce new weapons which could be easily adapted to users of any size.

I don't think anybody would disagree with the above advantages. From what I've read, the main problems seem to be that the penalty for using weapons made for a different sized user fails to simulate the historical accuracy of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and that it is difficult to keep track of the difference between a Small scimitar and a Medium kukri.

For the former, I guess there is always the optional weapon equivalency rules, and for the latter, perhaps we can come up with a unique name for a weapon of each size so that a Small scimitar is a kukri, a Medium scimitar is a scimitar, a Large scimitar is a falchion, a Huge scimitar is a great scimitar, a Tiny scimitar is a light kukri, and since I'm out of ideas, you'll just have to come up with names for the Gargantuan scimitar, the Colossal scimitar, the Dimunitive scimitar and the Fine scimitar yourselves.

EDIT: I forgot about the Colossal falchion and the Fine kukri. The 3.5e weapon size system must really be overloading what limited mental capacity I have.

 

[Bauglir]

The problems with the new system arise imo with reach weapons sized for small characters, which medium characters can wield 1-handed (at -2). This problem is more to do with the way size categories below medium scale strangely with respect to reach, than with the weapon sizing system itself though. Basically take out small reach weapons and I'd be happy with the 3.5e system.

 

[Shin Okada]

The problems with the new system arise imo with reach weapons sized for small characters, which medium characters can wield 1-handed (at -2). This problem is more to do with the way size categories below medium scale strangely with respect to reach, than with the weapon sizing system itself though. Basically take out small reach weapons and I'd be happy with the 3.5e system.

Is that a problem at all? -2 penalty is not something to be ignored. Other than allowing the use of shield, that one-handed reach weapon is not particularly good. And, at higher level, you can use animated shield + two-handed reach weapon and that is far much better.

Oh, and if your DM allow you to use Kusarigama, now that is a one-handed reach weapon without attack penalty.

 

[Bauglir]

It just results in strangeness; for instance at what size category does a halberd no longer provide 10' reach?

 

[0-hr]

It's very helpful to have a kid that age about, to really see how big a halfling actually is. And when you compare their hand size to yours, the 3.5 weapon sizes actually make much sence.

According to the book, a halfling female ranges from 32 to 38 inches tall.

My 21 month old daughter is 32 inches tall. To imagine someone her size in any sort of combat situation is just ludicrous.

So when the DM says "the townsfolk mistake your halfling for a child", what he really means is a "for a toddler".

- - -

But anyway, my opinion on weapon size is pretty much the same as for the d20 wealth system - it solves one small problem by creating several other small problems.

 

[FireLance]

It just results in strangeness; for instance at what size category does a halberd no longer provide 10' reach?

Technically, a halberd is not a reach weapon (I've made that mistake, too). But to answer the question in the spirit it was asked...

Tiny. As I understand it, the basic property of a reach weapon is to extend a creature's natural reach by 5 feet or more. In the case of a Tiny creature, it extends its natural reach from 0 to 5 feet, allowing it to attack another creature without entering its square and provoking an AOO.

 

[drunkmoogle]

It just results in strangeness; for instance at what size category does a halberd no longer provide 10' reach?

Halberds don't provide reach...