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.Kahuna Burger said: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.
*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 said: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.
Lucky for your players. Not so lucky for players of newbie or rules-loving DMs.Kahuna Burger said:*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.
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 said:I'm not a big fan of either. I think the 3.5 rules really hurt wee sized PC warriors
FireLance said: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.
Ranger REG said:Not so lucky for players of newbie or rules-loving DMs.
FireLance said: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.
Ranger REG said: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.