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

[Storyteller01]

Unless, of course, they are small weaponsmiths, who make small weapons, for small people.

But then those weapons would be made to accentuant their strengths, not throw them into melee.

Humans in all cultures used long weapons (spears and such) in warfare, as well as ranged weapons and traps. Swords were basically sidearms to use after the other side has been softened up. Rapiers rarely (if ever) saw battle field use (one type was specifically designed to pierce the seam of a specific style of breastplate). A halfling or a gnome MAY be able to wield a reach weapon, but why would they?

Most likely, little weaponsmiths would be churning out bows, arrows, and other basic small weapons for use in guerilla tactics. Given that DnD uses the European weapons and fighting styles, piercing would be preferred. A slahing weapon will eventually lose its edge when hacking 20 some pounds of steel (vs the japanese blades hacking at leather, laquered wood, and some steel, due to extreme heat conditions). That would mean daggers and shortswords, made to roughly human specs (possibly stolen from them).A platooon of halflings or gnomes would be slaughtered in any other senario (given the rarity of wizards, even among gnomes).

 

[Storyteller01]

Well, no, you just hold it in one hand while you cast.

Like you do with a staff.

-Hyp.

It works.

Gandalf weilded a longsword AND a double weapon (his staff), and still managed to cast spells. How ever you want it...

 

[Jhulae]

Of course, what everybody seems to forget is that even '3.0' had alternate weapon size rules already. However, it only dealt with Monk weapons. (Look in the Monk section.)

That meant, that while all of the small races in classes other than monk got to enjoy all those human sized weapons, small monks were getting 'shafted'.

Oh, the party finds a +2 dagger? Just let the halfling rogue use it like a shortsword. Yay! A +1 flaming burst longsword? The halfling barbarian will use it like a two handed sword! Oh, wow! A pair of medium sized +3 kamas! Well, you can use them, little halfling monk, but you'll have a hefty penalty on them because they're too large for you.

So, under 3.0 rules, small monks were still forced to use what is now common for every small class. What's fair is fair, after all.

 

[Storyteller01]

Of course, what everybody seems to forget is that even '3.0' had alternate weapon size rules already. However, it only dealt with Monk weapons. (Look in the Monk section.)

That meant, that while all of the small races in classes other than monk got to enjoy all those human sized weapons, small monks were getting 'shafted'.

Oh, the party finds a +2 dagger? Just let the halfling rogue use it like a shortsword. Yay! A +1 flaming burst longsword? The halfling barbarian will use it like a two handed sword! Oh, wow! A pair of medium sized +3 kamas! Well, you can use them, little halfling monk, but you'll have a hefty penalty on them because they're too large for you.

So, under 3.0 rules, small monks were still forced to use what is now common for every small class. What's fair is fair, after all.

OUCH!!!

Good point...

 

[Celtavian]

re

I like the new weapon sizing rules. They are easier to use than the old rules.

 

[The Souljourner]

Most likely, little weaponsmiths would be churning out bows, arrows, and other basic small weapons for use in guerilla tactics. Given that DnD uses the European weapons and fighting styles, piercing would be preferred. A slahing weapon will eventually lose its edge when hacking 20 some pounds of steel (vs the japanese blades hacking at leather, laquered wood, and some steel, due to extreme heat conditions). That would mean daggers and shortswords, made to roughly human specs (possibly stolen from them).A platooon of halflings or gnomes would be slaughtered in any other senario (given the rarity of wizards, even among gnomes).

Please don't use real world logic when it comes to what weapons are realistic. In a game with gnome hook hammers and dire flails, you really can't justify anything by saying "in the real world, x weapons are most popular".

Halflings fight just like anyone else. They're not small, everyone else is big. They have militia and scouts and armies just like anyone else. They do just as well against humans as humans do against ogres - which is to say, it sucks, but they deal.

Halfling weaponsmiths make weapons just like a human weaponsmith... .you don't see human weaponsmiths saying "You know... I would like to make you a rapier, but that's not a very realistic weapon to use when fighting an ogre... care to buy a crossbow?"

Small people make small things. Period.

-The Souljourner

 

[HeavyG]

Halflings fight just like anyone else. They're not small, everyone else is big. They have militia and scouts and armies just like anyone else. They do just as well against humans as humans do against ogres - which is to say, it sucks, but they deal.

Yeah.

If I had to fight an ogre in melee, I would want the longest weapon I could find. In that sense, reach weapons make perfect sense.

In the same way, were I a halfling that fights humans and orcs, I would love a reach weapon. (Well, a bow is better, but you don't always write the rules.)

 

[Storyteller01]

Please don't use real world logic when it comes to what weapons are realistic. In a game with gnome hook hammers and dire flails, you really can't justify anything by saying "in the real world, x weapons are most popular".

Halflings fight just like anyone else. They're not small, everyone else is big. They have militia and scouts and armies just like anyone else. They do just as well against humans as humans do against ogres - which is to say, it sucks, but they deal.

Halfling weaponsmiths make weapons just like a human weaponsmith... .you don't see human weaponsmiths saying "You know... I would like to make you a rapier, but that's not a very realistic weapon to use when fighting an ogre... care to buy a crossbow?"

Small people make small things. Period.

-The Souljourner

Not using real world dynamics, just the game rules. Little guys get squashed by orcs with reach, even with a +1 size bonus to AC. They get high dex and ranged weapons bonuses (not to mention cover bonuses). Why use a longspear if I can take you from range, and with much better cover bonuses. Why go into an open field with a 20 speed and get overrun by INFANTRY (not even talking about calvary yet!!!) with a greater reach? Unless you have greater numbers, its suicide.

Now using real world logic, indians took on US soldiers and calvary with shortspears, tomahawks, and bows. The indians may have lost, but they also lacked resources. A group of little guys could easliy use the same tactics and do the same damage.

I just don't see halflings using rapiers or longswords unless they have some kind of battlefield edge (such as gnomes with their magic) or if they actively dual each other...

On the other end, I can see halflings using nets and spears on patrols, and even longswords to a degree but they would probably still use their size and terrain to their advantage. I'm still iffy on halfings gaining reach for longspears though.

 

[nobodez]

You see, most people (me included) see combat as man to man combat with swords and shields, like five thousand gladiatorial combats at once. Now, this isn't correct, but that's the problem, I see it that way, so that's the way I'll see it.

Also, I love the weapon size rules, especially the better rules for enlarge and reduce and combat (gotta love the reduced mage and the enlarged fighter in combat).

 

[Storm Raven]

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

Not for him. For him it is technically a greatsword. Which means he treats it as a greatsword.

The 3.0 rules have the virture of simplicity, and in a system that abstracts out as much as D&D does, using a more complicated system because of questions about handle width and so on is just silly.