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

[Shade]

I use a combo of the two. I generally go with the 3.5 method, but if someone who is Medium wants to use a greatsword sized for a Small creature, I'll let 'em treat it as a longsword.

 

[Imperialus]

3.0. Sting was an elvin shortsword, troll dagger, and hobbit longsword... that's really all that needs to be said in my oppinion.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I like 3.5 because I can now have gnomish greataxes.

EDIT: By the way, you are still considered proficient with a a weapon that isn't your size. You only suffer a -2 cumulative penalty to attack. So a halfling can use a Medium shortsword (one handed) or longsword (two handed) with a -2 penalty. And so on and so forth.

 

[jdrakeh]

3.0. Sting was an elvin shortsword, troll dagger, and hobbit longsword... that's really all that needs to be said in my oppinion.

It's somewhat ironic that you should use that as an example - Sting was, in fact, a long-knife (in the novels) that just happened to be the perfect size to serve as a sword for Bilbo

 

[Imperialus]

Tolkin was also using a somwhat archeic definition of long-knife. Though the first mention of a short sword came from 1470ish it was used discriptively and not ment to discribe a praticular class of weapon. The next time you hear it mentioned isn't until 1865, therefore the "short sword" like the "broad sword" simply doesn't exist.

During the 100 years war the English would oftentimes field "knifemen" who carried long-knives of between 12 and 16 inches long and used to stab upward into the bellies of horses which sounds like the very definition of a D&D short sword as well as being a discription of how Sting was primarally used. The famed Welsh longbow men as well usually carried a "longknife" and there were numerous accounts of this making them praticuarly fierce combatants. That's the problem with using modern venacular to discribe historical weapons, a lot of the weapons simply didn't exist and those that did were known by sometimes dozens of different names.

 

[jdrakeh]

Tolkin was also using a somwhat archeic definition of long-knife.

Perhaps, but as it's the definition that he used, when it comes to Sting it's the only definition that matters

 

[Imperialus]

I think you missed the point of my post... basically what it boils down to is ("Longknife"+Gygax)*31 years="short sword sacred cow".

 

[jdrakeh]

I think you missed the point of my post... basically what it boils down to is ("Longknife"+Gygax)*31 years="short sword sacred cow".

I think you may be right! Thanks for the clarification

 

[Imperialus]

Looks like we're both wrong

ok from The Hobbit Ch 2 "Roast Mutton" "Bilbo took a knife in a leather sheath. It would have made only a tiny pocket knife for a troll, but it was as good as a short sword for the Hobbit"

From Ch 3 "A Short Rest" "Elrond knew all about runes of every kind. That day he looked at the swords they had brought from the trolls lair and he said: "These are not troll-make. They are old swords very old swords of the High Elves".

edit: either way though my orriginal point still stands, a knife to an elf, a pocketknife to a troll is still a short sword to Bilbo and Frodo. Personally the other issue I have with 3.5 weapon sizing rules is that halflings in praticular are not the most metalurgically inclined societies which puts a limit on how many small longswords they will produce themselves and the fact that they arn't very militaristic either would likely keep the humans, dwarves and everyone else from making weapons to suit them meaning that the poor SOB who played a halfling fighter just to be "different" (I did this once it was a dumb move) gets shafted even more.

 

[fuindordm]

I prefer (slightly) the 3.0 version, because I find it simpler for distributing goods to the party. You fight halflings, and get a +1 small shortsword. Isn't it easier just to call it a dagger, and save the resizing of weapons for really extreme cases?

Ben