Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jackinthegreen" data-source="post: 6244008" data-attributes="member: 6678119">I mostly agree with Vege on this.&nbsp; The original 3.0 rules were very questionable to me because any race that's going to be crafting a weapon for itself is going to make a proper weapon designed to be used by something of its size, not some potentially unbalanced length of steel meant for something perhaps significantly larger or smaller.&nbsp; A large longsword is not a medium greatsword, and in a game where the rules were made to treat monsters and players the same way with certain things to hopefully streamline the design process of both, forcing a weapon system centered on medium creatures was total BS.Perhaps it could have been said better and/or more succinctly, but analyzing the rules without extra baggage from other places like the previous edition does tend to make things easier.&nbsp; When I first started it was with 3.5, and it felt entirely natural that weapons be crafted specifically for certain sizes of monsters, but in a pinch they could be used by creatures of a different size provided the effort needed to wield the weapon didn't go out of whack like a medium creature trying to use a large 2h weapon.Reach is another matter and one that could have been done better when certain rules changed the way weapon sizes compared to the characters and their own reach, but taking a step back and analyzing it from different angles (like RAW, RAI, and Read As Reasonable for a particular table) allows one to get a better idea of the totality of the weapons rules and come to more sound conclusions.To hopefully finish off the OP's question: 3.5 allows a large creature to treat a medium 2-handed weapon as a large 1-handed weapon, with a -2 penalty on attack rolls due to balance and size issues.&nbsp; N'raac already quoted the relevant rules, although there are extra ones regarding reach and all that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jackinthegreen, post: 6244008, member: 6678119"] I mostly agree with Vege on this. The original 3.0 rules were very questionable to me because any race that's going to be crafting a weapon for itself is going to make a proper weapon designed to be used by something of its size, not some potentially unbalanced length of steel meant for something perhaps significantly larger or smaller. A large longsword is not a medium greatsword, and in a game where the rules were made to treat monsters and players the same way with certain things to hopefully streamline the design process of both, forcing a weapon system centered on medium creatures was total BS. Perhaps it could have been said better and/or more succinctly, but analyzing the rules without extra baggage from other places like the previous edition does tend to make things easier. When I first started it was with 3.5, and it felt entirely natural that weapons be crafted specifically for certain sizes of monsters, but in a pinch they could be used by creatures of a different size provided the effort needed to wield the weapon didn't go out of whack like a medium creature trying to use a large 2h weapon. Reach is another matter and one that could have been done better when certain rules changed the way weapon sizes compared to the characters and their own reach, but taking a step back and analyzing it from different angles (like RAW, RAI, and Read As Reasonable for a particular table) allows one to get a better idea of the totality of the weapons rules and come to more sound conclusions. To hopefully finish off the OP's question: 3.5 allows a large creature to treat a medium 2-handed weapon as a large 1-handed weapon, with a -2 penalty on attack rolls due to balance and size issues. N'raac already quoted the relevant rules, although there are extra ones regarding reach and all that. [/QUOTE]

Verification