Realism vs Simplicity in 3.5E

[MerricB]

I think your assumption that these two products are 3.0 is faulty.

The weapon size rules given are not the 3.5E weapon size rules - no doubt about it. Have a look at Ogre, Ogre Magi, Titan, Giant in your MM and see how they describe the weapons.

Cheers!

 

[hong]

Terms like "Gargantuan Warhammer" turn up. "Huge longbow", "Gargantuan greatsword", " Huge greatsword", "Huge greataxe".

The Arms and Equipment Guide and Savage Species actually give the rules - to create a medium dagger, you get a tiny dagger and increase its size from tiny to small to medium, and increase its damage likewise.

And the same rules for changing damage dice by size can be found in the 3.0 DMG and MM!

1d3 -> 1d4 -> 1d6 -> 1d8 -> 2d6, etc.

 

[AdvntrGuy]

The weapon size rules given are not the 3.5E weapon size rules - no doubt about it. Have a look at Ogre, Ogre Magi, Titan, Giant in your MM and see how they describe the weapons.

Cheers!

Sorry, not what I meant. The A&E Guide weapon size rules are a bad variant/retrofit on the way toward 3.5 rules. I'd drop listing as examples from your arguement, and stick with MM only. Anyway, no luck finding Andy's post.

As for Monster Manual weapons, I see your point, but they just don't factor into our game that much, from a player perspective. If a weapon is more than two size categorize bigger or smaller than you, our group assumed you couldn't use it and moved on.

I'm going to fall on the side of liking the "simplicity" of 3.0 weapon size rules, along with Sean (and Monte, btw).

{And as long as I went there, that quote from Sean was only about the new weapon handedness rules. For those in the thread who assumed he meant more, that isn't correct. He was complementary about many of the other changes.}

From a player-focused game design perspective: small, medium and large weapons for small, medium and large players is elegant design, IMHO. Handedness is like Facing, shouldn't be/have been in the core rules, again IMHO. Leave them as variants for those that want that level of detail. FWIW....

AG

 

[AdvntrGuy]

I'd offer for consideration: the weapon size conversions in the 3.0 DMG, and implied rules in the 3.0 MM, are secondary in importance to those in the Player's Hanbook.

I like Takyris' hypothesis too.

AG

 

[hong]

I'd offer for consideration: the weapon size conversions in the 3.0 DMG, and implied rules in the 3.0 MM, are secondary in importance to those in the Player's Hanbook.

So your ogres' greatclubs do 1d10 damage?

 

[AdvntrGuy]

No, a Huge great club does 2d6, just like it says in the DMG/MM. In our group, no one smaller than large could use it. That's how we "fixed" 3.0 rules.

 

[MerricB]

So, basically, if your group ran into a titan they would only be using the weapons listed in their entry in the MM, because you couldn't extrapolate out other types of weapons?

Cheers!

 

[AdvntrGuy]

No, the titan can have any kind of gargantuan-sized weapon we wanted him to have. No creature smaller than huge could ever use it.

 

[mmadsen]

I tried to make the point that realism is not the opposite of simplicity. Realism is the opposite of cinematism, and granularity is the opposite of simplicity.

I agree that realism is not the opposite of simplicity; complexity is the opposite of simplicity.

There are many ways to be unrealistic; being cinematic is just one of the them. When people complain that something is unrealistic, it's typically because it doesn't make real or cinematic sense, e.g. a healing potion heals a grevious wound on a peasant, but not even a scratch on a high-level fighter.

You can make a very realistic system that uses a 1d6 roll, plus your bonuses in something, to determine what happens. It's realistic -- it's just not very precise, not very granular, and while the result of a guy with X years of training trying to do Y might statistically map very well to the real-life odds (making it realistic), it's not going to have the nitty-gritty detail many gamers want.

That would be an abstract system, versus a detailed system -- an abstract, realistic system, versus a detailed, unrealistic system (like most RPGs).

D&D is by nature cinematic because people get more hit points -- it can be argued that it's abstract, and I often do argue just that, but really, at high levels, D&D people are just good at not getting seriously hurt by that sword, and in reality, people don't generally get that good. It's meant to be a model of a fun-swordfights fantasy movie, which by nature makes it cinematic.

But there are many ways to have a system as simple as D&D, and as cinematic as D&D, while making more sense (i.e., seeming more "realistic" in the sense of the typical complaint).

 

[AdvntrGuy]

Sorry - had to edit the above posts. Our modification was up to one size category bigger than the wielder or two sizes smaller. No humans weilding Huge-sized weapons.