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

[lukelightning]

The 3.5 rules do not hurt small races; I found the 3.0 rules to be much worse. My gnome druid was extremely limited to what weapons she could weild; since she wanted a shield, clubs, scimitars, or spears were not options.

I think that 3.5 rules are simpler; you don't have to think "ok, this is a Small weapon (which is not the same as Small size), the giant is large, he weilds it as a...um..."

Plus it makes sense that different races make weapons suitable for their size.

 

[Ranger REG]

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

Perhaps, but it's best to have the rules from the start, and not have to offer a new table for advanced D&D gamers.

Besides, 3.5e makes the rules less human-centric (it's not about them turd of a species).

 

[FireLance]

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.

The way I see it, the problem isn't the 3.5 size rules, it's the lack of magic stores in the campaign . If the halfling can easily turn a +1 Medium shortsword into a +1 Small longsword, I'm sure he'll complain less.

 

[Li Shenron]

Perhaps, but it's best to have the rules from the start, and not have to offer a new table for advanced D&D gamers.

Well I am not so sure I agree, but fine Generally speaking I'd say yes, better to have a rule since the start; but if the purpose of the rule is to help sort-of-advanced gaming (such as playing a large character), I prefer them as a variant. Savage Species was the best place, since it's a book about playing "monstrous" character smaller than small and larger than medium, while the core PHB is only about playing medium or small creatures. This has slightly changed in 3.5 (e.g. the core MM has LAs).

 

[MerricB]

Well I am not so sure I agree, but fine Generally speaking I'd say yes, better to have a rule since the start; but if the purpose of the rule is to help sort-of-advanced gaming (such as playing a large character), I prefer them as a variant. Savage Species was the best place, since it's a book about playing "monstrous" character smaller than small and larger than medium, while the core PHB is only about playing medium or small creatures. This has slightly changed in 3.5 (e.g. the core MM has LAs).

Note that the rules for swift and immediate spells have to be reprinted in *every* book that uses them. This wouldn't be necessary if they were in the core rules.

The rules are necessary for halfling and gnome PCs in any case.

Cheers!

 

[Angel Tarragon]

I prefer the 3.5 Weapon Size Rules.

 

[Li Shenron]

Note that the rules for swift and immediate spells have to be reprinted in *every* book that uses them. This wouldn't be necessary if they were in the core rules.

But swift and immediate spells are not exactly necessary since the start.

The rules are necessary for halfling and gnome PCs in any case.

I don't know if the authors felt the need to modify the rules because of smaller races, I had the impression that it was done more for larger races. The 3.5 sizes do matter among parties even with only small & medium, because they deal with swapping weapons among characters and sharing treasure. These situations were also covered in 3.0 anyway.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I used to gripe about the 3.5 rules that prevented me from using oversized versions of small weapons like the Kukri...

But then one day I held in my left hand a 6" dagger and in my right hand a 6" replica Toledo basket hilted rapier letter opener...

While both objects were relatively sharp and pointy, I could easily see that there was a great difference between the 2. The dagger had a 3" blade and a 3" grip- which was about 2 1/2" around. The rapier's handle was 3/4", with a 5 1/4" blade and a handle skinnier than a pencil.

An extreme example, I know, but there is no way a PC capable of using my letter opener as a rapier could use the dagger as even a 2-handed weapon. The grip is the wrong size, the balance is wrong...it just won't work!

I still think that using a weapon within 1 size class of its normal size should be allowed with minimal (if any) penalties, as long as it its normal size is no bigger than 1 handed for the PC.

Thus, if someone asks for an oversized weapon, I let them have one...but it has to be masterwork!

 

[MerricB]

I don't know if the authors felt the need to modify the rules because of smaller races, I had the impression that it was done more for larger races. The 3.5 sizes do matter among parties even with only small & medium, because they deal with swapping weapons among characters and sharing treasure. These situations were also covered in 3.0 anyway.

The one rule change to 3.5e that makes for trouble is not the weapon size rules, but the lack of resizing for magic weapons and armour.

I use the variant weapon equivalencies in the DMG to allow the "halfling longsword" = "human shortsword" option available, but I far, far prefer having a halfling-sized rapier.

Here's something very, very stupid: by the 3e PHB, the only weapon the halfling could use with Weapon Finesse was the dagger. This is a race that has a superior Dexterity.

(I think they could, by the rules, use a Rapier with weapon finesse - in two hands. Hmm).

In 3.5e, Large races or races with Powerful Build are becoming more common as well.

Cheers!

 

[Storm Raven]

Here's something very, very stupid: by the 3e PHB, the only weapon the halfling could use with Weapon Finesse was the dagger. This is a race that has a superior Dexterity.

(I think they could, by the rules, use a Rapier with weapon finesse - in two hands. Hmm).

To be pedantic - using the 3.0 rules, a halfling could also finesse a punching dagger, gauntlet, spiked gauntlet, kukri, halfling siangham, halfling nunchaku, or halfling kama.