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

[Storm Raven]

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.

Well, except for the Roman armies. The gladius was their primary weapon for most of the Republican period, and well into the Imperial era.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

Not at all.

In 3E, a Large greatsword deals 2d6 19-20/x2 Slashing damage, and has no range increment.

A Large dagger deals 2d6 19-20/x2 Piercing damage, and has a 10' range increment.

They're clearly completely different weapons.

-Hyp.

 

[silentspace]

Well, except for the Roman armies. The gladius was their primary weapon for most of the Republican period, and well into the Imperial era.

Yeah, but those guys didn't do much conquering or stuff like that.

 

[Storm Raven]

Not at all.

In 3E, a Large greatsword deals 2d6 19-20/x2 Slashing damage, and has no range increment.

A Large dagger deals 2d6 19-20/x2 Piercing damage, and has a 10' range increment.

They're clearly completely different weapons.

Not from the perspective of the Medium size wielder. For him, it is treated as a greatsword, and used identically. You can try to dance around the issue all you want, but your pedantic attempt to show a nonexistent flaw simply fails.

 

[Quasqueton]

In 3.0, what is the size of a Colossal creature's greatsword?

In 3.5, the answer is "Colossal greatsword".


In 3.0, what is the size of a halfling's short sword? [Trick question?]

In 3.5, the answer is "Small short sword".


In 3.0, what is the size of an ogre's dagger? [Trick question?]

In 3.5, the answer is "Large dagger".


Quasqueton

 

[Storm Raven]

In 3.0, what is the size of a halfling's short sword? [Trick question?]

Tiny.

In 3.5, the answer is "Small short sword".

Which is why it is overcomplicated. Eight size categories for each of the commonly used weapons overcomplicates the issue for limited useful gain other than being able to have pedants like you be satisfied.

In 3.0, what is the size of an ogre's dagger? [Trick question?]

Not really, the answer would be Small, and function identically to a shortsword for a Medium sized wielder.

In 3.5, the answer is "Large dagger".

So, in 3.5, your wizard could use the large dagger as a dagger, whereas in 3.0, it would be treated as a shortsword for him. Big improvement.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not from the perspective of the Medium size wielder. For him, it is treated as a greatsword, and used identically.

No, it isn't.

A 3E shortsword scaled for a Large wielder isn't a longsword; it still deals Piercing damage. Longswords don't.

-Hyp.

 

[Aaron2]

Not from the perspective of the Medium size wielder. For him, it is treated as a greatsword, and used identically. You can try to dance around the issue all you want, but your pedantic attempt to show a nonexistent flaw simply fails.

There is nothing in the 3.0 rules to support this view. A large dagger is not the same as a large greatsword. If -you- treat it so, then that is a house rule of your campaign.

Which is why it is overcomplicated. Eight size categories for each of the commonly used weapons overcomplicates the issue for limited useful gain other than being able to have pedants like you be satisfied.

First off, the ability to have every weapon available for any character regarless of that character's size is a significantly useful thing. In 3.5, I can make a single weapon entry for a new weapon (such as a Falx) and there are clearly defined rules for use of this weapon by anybody regardless of size. This just wasn't true in 3.0. Look at the AU weapon lists; you've got entry after entry of weapons that vary only by their size like Faen Shortaxe, Sprytebow, Giant's bow, Faen nunchaku etc. None of this is needed anymore.

Overall, I find the newer rules much less complicated than the old ones.


Aaron

 

[Tetsubo]

Not from the perspective of the Medium size wielder. For him, it is treated as a greatsword, and used identically. You can try to dance around the issue all you want, but your pedantic attempt to show a nonexistent flaw simply fails.

I've been collecting, researching and sketching weapons for a couple of decades. Based on a weapon sitting in my office you get these measurements:

A Dagger with a 4.5" long blade and a 0.75" wide grip is a Tiny weapon for me, a Medium sized person. If you scale that up to a Greatsword size you get a blade that is 48" long and a grip that is 8" wide. Ok, stop for a moment and read that again. You end up with a grip EIGHT INCHES wide. That is not a Greatsword. That is a poorly designed prybar. Weapons need to be designed to suit their intended use and size. Scaling does not work that way.

 

[Tetsubo]

There is nothing in the 3.0 rules to support this view. A large dagger is not the same as a large greatsword. If -you- treat it so, then that is a house rule of your campaign.



First off, the ability to have every weapon available for any character regarless of that character's size is a significantly useful thing. In 3.5, I can make a single weapon entry for a new weapon (such as a Falx) and there are clearly defined rules for use of this weapon by anybody regardless of size. This just wasn't true in 3.0. Look at the AU weapon lists; you've got entry after entry of weapons that vary only by their size like Faen Shortaxe, Sprytebow, Giant's bow, Faen nunchaku etc. None of this is needed anymore.

Overall, I find the newer rules much less complicated than the old ones.


Aaron

You use the Falx in your campaign? You're my new hero. I love obscure weapons...