Realism vs Simplicity in 3.5E

[Spatula]

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

Actually, they're in the 3.0 DMG, which gives the table for changing the size of a weapon. That's all you really need.

I don't own the 3E A&EG, but Savage Species was sorely lacking in the equipment rules for unusual characters department as I recall. And as AdvntrGuy pointed out, both are quasi-3/3.5E books. IIRC, Savage Species contradicts both 3.0 and 3.5 on several counts (the reach of a large/tall creature with a reach weapon, the definition of fire/cold vulnerability, monster stats, etc.).

 

[Spatula]

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.

Like the kukri? The halfling also can't use a good chunk of found weaponry without taking a -2 penalty.

 

[hong]

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.

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

So your clerics wield Large light maces for 2d6?

 

[hong]

Like the kukri? The halfling also can't use a good chunk of found weaponry without taking a -2 penalty.

Well, you know, he gets combat bonuses for being small, and a whole cartoad of skill bonuses, and save bonuses, and gets sidewise looks because his race is known for theivery - there's pluses and minuses to the various race choices. Compared to all the bennies the halfling gets, missing out on a dinky piercing weapon is hardly a catastrophe.

Hong "... or something" Ooi

 

[AdvntrGuy]

So your clerics wield Large light maces for 2d6?

I wouldn't see why not, if they ever find them.

 

[hong]

I wouldn't see why not, if they ever find them.

1. How hard do you think it is to make an upsized mace?

2. So your ogres, hill giants, frost giants and fire giants never have clerics?

3. What happened to

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.

4. Can I play a cleric in your campaign?

 

[AdvntrGuy]

I don't think it's hard for a DM to upsize a weapon, and your example is what I meant. If the party defeats an Ogre carying a Large light mace, they can use it as a two-handed weapon. They can't buy one in town. So if they drop the medium-sized (one-handed) heavy mace, for the large-sized (two-handed) light mace, no more shield. That's the trade-off.

That's also what I mean by "of secondary importance." Ye olde weaponsmith isn't ever going to make a large light mace IMC. It's not like you get to go shopping for it.

Our group tends to consist of characters who eventually save the world. We're very big on scaling weapon abilities, so we'd never dump what we have for a 2d6 large light mace.

 

[Treebore]

The way I handled it, and I didn't refer to any rules for this, was if you wanted to use a racial weapon, such as a titan greatsword, the weapon could be no longer than your character was tall and you had to take the exotic weapon proficiency in it. Otherwise you could wield it with penalties if it was as small as you are tall. If it was bigger you simply couldn't use it effectively.


If I ever had a titan sized fighter type PC wanting to use a titan greatsword equivelant then all of the extra's would be moot.

As for the halfling, and similiar sized creatures, if the weapon they wanted to use was listed as small, no problem/penalty if they have the proper feat for that particular weapon to fall in (ie simple, exotic, martial, etc...) If it was in the medium size category they have to use it 2-handed. If it was/is large, too bad.

Works for me. I find it very simple and intuitive, but that is most likely because I am so "familiar" with it.

 

[hong]

I don't think it's hard for a DM to upsize a weapon, and your example is what I meant. If the party defeats an Ogre carying a Large light mace, they can use it as a two-handed weapon. They can't buy one in town. So if they drop the medium-sized (one-handed) heavy mace, for the large-sized (two-handed) light mace, no more shield. That's the trade-off.

That's also what I mean by "of secondary importance." Ye olde weaponsmith isn't ever going to make a large light mace IMC. It's not like you get to go shopping for it.

Our group tends to consist of characters who eventually save the world. We're very big on scaling weapon abilities, so we'd never dump what we have for a 2d6 large light mace.

One day, you will understand that "as DM, I ban this" is irrelevant to my-ruleset-is-bigger-than-yours wars.

So, why can a cleric use a 2d6 Large mace, but not a 1d10 greatclub?

 

[takyris]

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

Complexity is a better word than granularity, agreed.

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 know, it's a segue, but I came up with an in-world rationale for why that worked. It was a mix of several ideas, including "people build up a tolerance to healing magic, requiring more of it to work for them the more that they get healed, which is why rarely healed peasants only need a little magic, but hardened warrior veterans need a lot" and "healing magic must first penetrate the soul-power of the target, and it requires more to get through on a more powerful person" and "clerics don't actually get more power, they just get better at using the power that they do have" and such. Utter handwaving, of course...

But you're totally right in that there's cinematically unrealistic and then there's... otherly unrealistic. I was applying the argument often used against abstract hit points ("You're saying I can hit in the head with a greatsword and be fine just because I have hit points!" shouts the guy who doesn't understand the abstract combat system...), but this is really noncinematic. On the other hand, in the movies, you almost never hear the good guy say "Oh, can't use that one, not proficient, hey, that one's... no, it's not sized properly, what about, well, okay, it's too large for finesse, though." Cinematically, it ought to be pretty easy and painless to use a weapon, all other things being equal.

Not saying that that belongs in every campaign, but I can understand some of the irritation, even if it does result in a titan's folding pocket-knife working perfectly well as a halfling's greatsword, and vice versa.

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