A +1 Shortsword is usually better than a Shortsword itself. But if I also suffer a -2 penalty with it, it's usefulness is greatly reduced...MarkB said:I've never seen the problem with 3.5e weapon size rules. I don't think they're any more complex for a player coming into the game than the 3.0 rules - it's generally just (some of) those who are used to the 3.0 rules that seem to have trouble making the transition.
Frankly, if the outsize weapon you find in a treasure hoard is decent enough to be worth using, a -2 penalty to attacks isn't going to set you back that badly - and if it's not worth it for you, sell the thing and use the money to upgrade your own weapon, or else buy the "sizing" ability from the MIC.
I didn't really like the 3.5 approach that much, but maybe it is just for the -2 penalty. Using weapon size and handedness has a few advantages (most notably, it's easier to come up with names). Maybe the rules should say:
For each category that a weapon is smaller than the characters size, reduce its handedness by one step for the character. For each category that a weapon is larger than the characters size, increase its handedness category by one step. If the effective handedness goes below light or above two-handed, the character cannot use the weapon.
A weapon can only grant reach if it is wielded as a two-handed weapon, regardless of its effective handedness for the wielder.
The weapon still requires the same proficiency. No talk about claiming that a short sword might be a Longsword to a Halfling or something like that.