Do you prefer the 3.5 or the 3.0 weapon size rules?

[Pants]

They both have their problems and benefits, but eh... I'm using 3.5 now. At least smaller races have more weapons to choose from now...

But my group prefers the 3.0 style, so whatever.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I prefer 3.0 because as unrealistic as it may be, it's nice to have my half elf be able to take a short sword off a goblin and at least use it as a dagger if she has no other melee weapon. The whole "its the wrong size so you are non proficient" just makes more treasure useless, and useless treasure makes the game less fun.

 

[Particle_Man]

The new rules do leave halflings and gnomes "short"-changed when it comes to finding magic weapons, as most such will be medium size.

 

[Li Shenron]

More or less I think they are the same. I prefer (slightly) the 3.0 version because it was easier to exchange weapons between party members, or to divide the treasure, or to pick up weapons from fallen enemies.

The new system is probably more complete, but there it has some irrationalities with the weapon feats. It gives more variety of choice for smaller and bigger character, which frankly I don't care much about. So in brief, if I have to play 3.5 I have no problems, but I absolutely don't need the new weapon rules anytime.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I think the 3.5 weapon size rules are anal to a level that is out of character for D&D. And at the same time comes up with some nonsensical results. So in essence, you trade one set of head scratchers for a new set with additional bookkeeping.

What additional book keeping is required outside of knowing the size of the weapon? Ah, I see later...

Well, instead of worrying only about a weapon type which implicitly includes size, I have to give all weapons in the game a type and a size. Now all the sudden, even if a weapon is small enough for a character to wield it, I have to worry about what size it was forged for, and apply an attendant modifier for it.

A type and size? Isn't the type determined by the weapon and in most cases, the size determined by the typical wielder? Just not seeing the real issue here unless you're using a massive amount of different sized races with magic weapons as most party members I've played with, don't care about mundane goods.

Could you give me an example of where the extra book keeping might become a problem? I could be misremembering, but most of the creatures in the Monster Manual usually have assigned weapons so I generally don't sweat any details there and unless I'm throwing in a unique item for one of the characters, don't generally worry about the size issue.

 

[jdrakeh]

I prefer the 3.0 rules for weapon size which, IMHO, reflect the conventions of most high fantasy fiction better than the 3.5 rules for weapon size which place more focus on meta-resource management (nothing wrong with that, mind you - it's just a style of play that I don't personally dig).

 

[Psion]

A type and size? Isn't the type determined by the weapon and in most cases,

Yes. That was the easy part, and is the same as it was before.

the size determined by the typical wielder?

Yes, but that's one more thinkg I have to keep track of that I didn't before. And it has a game sensible impact. A gnome can no longer just pick up a medium shortsword and use it as a two handed weapon. Nor can I ignore that a dagger is forged for halflings -- there is a penalty if a human tries to pick it up and use it.

Just not seeing the real issue here unless you're using a massive amount of different sized races with magic weapons as most party members I've played with, don't care about mundane goods.

The game includes 2 pc race sizes and large opponents are common enough that some of the generated treasure will be the wrong size for the party.

Could you give me an example of where the extra book keeping might become a problem? I could be misremembering, but most of the creatures in the Monster Manual usually have assigned weapons so I generally don't sweat any details there and unless I'm throwing in a unique item for one of the characters, don't generally worry about the size issue.

Okay, let's say you generate a magic weapon for a creature like a yuan ti abomination or an ogre mage. Do you generously assume that the weapon is medium or small sized? Or if your players fight some goblins with class levels, if you don't have a gnome or a halfling in the party, the sword that the leader has is not usable by the party without penalty. Those are things a) I would not have had to worry about before, and b) doesn't convince me is any more accurate for their inclusion. Does a human really deserve a penalty when using a goblin shortsword? I'm not convinced, and it seems anal at the very least.

But I feel like I am repeating myself.

 

[JoeGKushner]

But I feel like I am repeating myself.

So I guess the real question here, is do you houserule it to 3.0 or go by the RAW?

 

[Psion]

So I guess the real question here, is do you houserule it to 3.0 or go by the RAW?

Why is that the real question?

I house rule it. Not to revert to 3.0 (because that would take making new house rulings for all the classes, and that would take more work), but to have a 1-size category "grace zone" - if the weapon is only one size category off, ignore the penalty (but rules regarding weapon size still apply.) I simply don't think it's worth expending a lot of brain sweat on the issue, so I choose to ignore it as much as reasonable.

 

[Henry]

At first, I thought I'd dislike the 3.5 size rules, but then when we started using them for an Eberron game, our players naturally gravitated to them; they are as easy to use as the 3.0 rules, and rarely make a difference in play; same as they used to, if they run into an item they can't use, they'd sell it and split the money.