Realism vs Simplicity in 3.5E

[MerricB]

In 3E rules I would say...

Halfling: Hand Crossbow, Dagger, Dart, Light Mace, Sap, Shortbow and Short Sword
Ogre: Light Crossbow, Heavy Crossbow, Short Sword, Light Mace, heavy mace, morningstar, quarterstaff, and rapier
Titan: Heavy Crossbow, Short Sword, Light Mace, Heavy Mace, Morningstar, Quarterstaff, Rapier and "titan's javelin" just for good measure.
An "Ogre-sized dagger" is in fact a shortsword and thus a human wizard is not proficient in using it. A "titan-sized dagger" is in fact a longsword and thus a human wizard is not proficient in using it. However a medium sized fighter would be happy using either.

So, basically you'd have weapon equivalency tables for every weapon? (See DMG 3.5E, page 27)

Why does the halfling get to use human-sized weapons, whilst the human can't use weapons sized one larger?

Why is the halfling penalised by not having a halfling-sized rapier to use?

Cheers!

 

[Spatula]

If anyone can show me the fix for the 3E rules that makes them simpler than the 3.5E rules, please do so.

In the fix, please list:
* What weapons a halfling rogue can wield

Listed in the 3.0 rogue description.

* What weapons a ogre rogue can wield

Like Umbran pointed out, the 3.0 PHB doesn't address non-standard sized creatures (nor non-standard shaped creatures, in 3.0 in 3.5 - what weapons can an awakened horse rogue wield?). So, it's up the DM. I would take the list of rogue weapons for a human and move them up one size. Shortsword instead of dagger, longsword instead of shortsword, etc.

* What weapons a titan rogue can wield

Same as above, only moved up 3? more size categories.

* What happens when a human wizard wields an ogre-sized dagger, or a titan-sized dagger

Ogre-sized dagger = shortsword. Titan-sized dagger would presumably be a huge blade, which would do 2d8 damage if I'm recalling the damage scaling table in the DMG correctly.

I can see the appeal in the 3.5 weapon sizing rules for DMs, but *for PCs* I feel the rules are less than ideal because they add extra bookkeeping and penalize halfling & gnome characters.

So, in summation, the 3.5 weapon-sizing rules are obviously deficient because they don't take awakened dire horses with class levels into account.

 

[Quicken]

So, basically you'd have weapon equivalency tables for every weapon? (See DMG 3.5E, page 27)

Not at all. I'm just using different names that appear to be confusing you. Your "ogre-sized dagger" is to me a shortsword. As I stick to 3E rules ( I don't even own a 3.5E book ) I don't recognised a shortsword as being any other size but "small" and thus a weapon even a halfing can use one handed.

Why does the halfling get to use human-sized weapons, whilst the human can't use weapons sized one larger?

I fail to see what you're pointing to. All the weapons listed are "small" or "tiny" in size and thus can be used one handed even by a halfing. They are not what I would generally consider "human-sized" such as a longsword.

Why is the halfling penalised by not having a halfling-sized rapier to use?

Because no such weapon exists. If you want to play a small sized character I think it's only far to accept that you're out-numbered by medium sized characters. Thus there are not a lot of weapons available in your size.

A generous DM could allow a "halfling rapier" and grant proficiency for such is always the privledge of the DM. Or you could argue that halflings and gnomes have been hard done by and consider additional benefits for the race to help balance things up. To me that would be a better solution than having every weapon available in any size.

Is balance (or retaining a wide selection of weapons) for unusually sized creatures your only concern with how 3E handles weapon sizes?

 

[MerricB]

I can see the appeal in the 3.5 weapon sizing rules for DMs, but *for PCs* I feel the rules are less than ideal because they add extra bookkeeping and penalize halfling & gnome characters.

They don't penalize them much. A halfling can now wield a reach weapon, and use a bunch of weapons with Weapon Finesse - including weapons with 18-20/x2 crit ranges.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Listed in the 3.0 rogue description.
Like Umbran pointed out, the 3.0 PHB doesn't address non-standard sized creatures

The 3E rules are in Savage Species and the Arms and Equipment Guide.

Cheers!

 

[Li Shenron]

What annoys me a little is that the 3.0 rules were fine when playing core races, which I have always found played by 99% of the persons I game with. Perhaps I have always been in boring atypical groups. 3.5 weapon rules revision seems to have been done mostly to address larger races, but complicated the thing for the 2 core character sizes: small and medium.

 

[hong]

I fail to see what you're pointing to. All the weapons listed are "small" or "tiny" in size and thus can be used one handed even by a halfing. They are not what I would generally consider "human-sized" such as a longsword.

In small words.

In 3.0, a halfling cleric can use a Medium light mace (1d8) in two hands. Can a human cleric therefore use a Large light mace (2d6) in two hands? If so, I want one.

Is balance (or retaining a wide selection of weapons) for unusually sized creatures your only concern with how 3E handles weapon sizes?

Balance has nothing to do with it. The 3E system is basically inelegant. Some things get upsized and others don't, and how things fall into one category or the other is essentially arbitrary. This is not very attractive from a purely theoretical, system-design point of view.

The 3.5 solution is conceptually more elegant, in that it sets out a very straightforward system of equivalencies by size. Whether this conceptual elegance actually facilitates ease of play is another matter.

 

[Bauglir]

I find the 3e weapon system to be extremely straightforward and far prefer it to the 3.5e version. That said we've always played it with a slight modification. Frex lets look at the range of different 'sword' weapons:

Tiny: Dagger
Small: Shortsword
Medium: Longsword
Large: Greatsword

These weapon definitions assume a medium sized creature wielding them. IMC we simply scale this relationship with the wielder ie:

Size-2: Dagger
Size-1: Shortsword
Size+0: Longsword
Size+1: Greatsword

So an ogre, as a large sized creature wields a large sword as a longsword. A human could wield the same sword, but they would do so as a greatsword.

These assumptions carried through into proficiencies. So an ogre rogue would be proficient with a large rapier, a halfling rogue with a small rapier and so on. In some cases that aren't specifically covered it would be necessary to make a judgement call. For example I think that it would be reasonable to declare the halfling sized rapier a light martial weapon to a medium creature. YMMV

Availability of these weapons would depend on your campaign. I would imagine in a world where halflings and gnomes are relatively common, weapons scaled to small size creatures would not be difficult to acquire.

Yes, small reach weapons were a problem, but small reach weapons are still a problem under 3.5e. IMO this is because of the way reach doesn't scale properly with creature sizes below medium (ie - for each size category above medium, reach increases by a further 5ft, yet small creatures have the same reach as medium creatures) rather than being indicative of any problem with the weapon system specifically.

 

[MerricB]

What annoys me a little is that the 3.0 rules were fine when playing core races, which I have always found played by 99% of the persons I game with. Perhaps I have always been in boring atypical groups. 3.5 weapon rules revision seems to have been done mostly to address larger races, but complicated the thing for the 2 core character sizes: small and medium.

I agree with that assessment: the 3.5E revision of the weapon size rules was to take into account larger races, and in so doing complicated the rules somewhat.

(I really advise anyone who has trouble with a halfling using a human-sized dagger and getting a penalty to check out the variant Weapon Equivalency rules in the 3.5E DMG - they fix one of the main problems with the system).

Cheers!

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I agree... there was nothing wrong with the previous weapon size system of allowing a race to wield any weapon the race's size or smaller with one hand. A Halfling could wield a Dagger or Short Sword just fine with one hand but a Long Sword (size M) would be wielded with two hands by the same halfling where a human (size M) could wield the same weapon with one hand. A Large creature could wield a Great Sword (size L) one handed and wield a Long Sword in the other hand for Paired Weapons with minimal penalties with the proper feats.
I AM glad that they got rid of Ambidextrous as an understood prerequisite for Two-Weapon fighting. If I remember right (and I may be wrong) florentine fencing made great use of two weapons and I refuse to believe that every person in history who practiced that style would be considered truely Ambidextrous.