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

[dcollins]

I was excited by the elegance of the 3.0 weapon rules when I first saw them. (3.5 broke that elegance in favor of "realism" minutiae; a common trait in ruleset revisions).

I also prefer the 3.0 setting flavor that smaller races don't have the same war production as humans.

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

True, but then you'd have to create a weapon equivalancy table for PC races larger than Large. I mean, what's a Storm Giant Wizards's starting weapon proficiency should be? It can't be a dagger because in 3.0e (which uses Medium-size Human benchmark) it looks like one of them miniature toy props in his large hand. And by RAW, such a wizard can't use a [Medium-sized] greatsword -- which is about as close to feel like a dagger in his hand -- without taking a WP feat.

And don't get me started on next large weapon, "fullblade" which I think is a silly weapon in both name and stats.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

True, but then you'd have to create a weapon equivalancy table for PC races larger than Large. I mean, what's a Storm Giant Wizards's starting weapon proficiency should be? It can't be a dagger because in 3.0e (which uses Medium-size Human benchmark) it looks like one of them miniature toy props in his large hand. And by RAW, such a wizard can't use a [Medium-sized] greatsword -- which is about as close to feel like a dagger in his hand -- without taking a WP feat.

And don't get me started on next large weapon, "fullblade" which I think is a silly weapon in both name and stats.

*shrug* such matters come up so much less, that I'd be willing to rule them on the fly and do a little extra work in that rare case vs getting a bunch of -2 weapons as treasure.

 

[Ranger REG]

*shrug* such matters come up so much less, that I'd be willing to rule them on the fly and do a little extra work in that rare case vs getting a bunch of -2 weapons as treasure.

Lucky for your players. Not so lucky for players of newbie or rules-loving DMs.

 

[The Human Target]

I'm not a big fan of either. I think the 3.5 rules really hurt wee sized PC warriors and the 3.0 rules robbed them of some of the options of the big races and didn't really make sense.


I'm hard to please.

 

[FireLance]

I'm not a big fan of either. I think the 3.5 rules really hurt wee sized PC warriors

With respect to availability, maybe, but a 3.0 dagger does the same damage as a 3.5 Small shortsword, a 3.0 shortsword does the same damage as a 3.5 Small longsword, and a 3.0 longsword does less damage than a 3.5 Small greatsword.

 

[The Human Target]

With respect to availability, maybe, but a 3.0 dagger does the same damage as a 3.5 Small shortsword, a 3.0 shortsword does the same damage as a 3.5 Small longsword, and a 3.0 longsword does less damage than a 3.5 Small greatsword.

Totally agreed. I think the problem is in part a mental one. If you see that your longsword does less that the human fighters, even if under the 3.0 rules you'd be using a shortsword with the same damage, it just sorta feels different.

I think the real question is, does being small and having all of its advantages warrant the use of less damaging wepaons as a balance point? I think it does, but its harsh to do both that and give a hit to Str.

 

[Li Shenron]

Not so lucky for players of newbie or rules-loving DMs.

Newbie DMs should not allow PC larger-than-large.

Experts DMs or rules-loveing DMs should find such advanced rules in accessory books (like Savage Species), without the need to cover such rare circumstances in the PHB

 

[Bagpuss]

With respect to availability, maybe, but a 3.0 dagger does the same damage as a 3.5 Small shortsword, a 3.0 shortsword does the same damage as a 3.5 Small longsword, and a 3.0 longsword does less damage than a 3.5 Small greatsword.

I think it hurt them more because most of the time we've been fighting medium creatures and the halfling in our party is shafted by the fact even when we find a magical shortsword he can't use it because it's a 'medium' one. In 3.0 he'ld be able to use it.

 

[Storm Raven]

True, but then you'd have to create a weapon equivalancy table for PC races larger than Large. I mean, what's a Storm Giant Wizards's starting weapon proficiency should be? It can't be a dagger because in 3.0e (which uses Medium-size Human benchmark) it looks like one of them miniature toy props in his large hand. And by RAW, such a wizard can't use a [Medium-sized] greatsword -- which is about as close to feel like a dagger in his hand -- without taking a WP feat.

Well given the fact that a storm giant has several levels in "giant", which grants him proficiency with all simple and martial weapons, I don't think this is a problem that will ever come up.