Random wrote:There was a lot to get confused by I found. Like how many hands it took to wield a large greatsword for instance. It was actually two handed for a large creature, but one handed for a huge creature and so on. That was well... complicated.
OK, I see you managed to get plenty confused by the extremely simple fvcking system, so I'll grant that there was evidentally something to be confused by:
Weapons your sized are one handed.
Weapons smaller than your size are light.
Weapons one size larger than your size are two handed.
Weapons two or more sizes larger than you cannot be used.
A Large Greatsword is the normal Greatsword. It was listed under "Large Weapons". There was no fvcking mystery to it. It was used two handed by a medium creature. It was used one handed by a large creature. It was used as a light weapon by a huge creature. A small creature couldn't use it at all.
I'll grant that you apparently got completely confused by absolute size categories, but I am totally at a loss to explain how you did that.
Random wrote:It'd have actually worked if it was just called a large sword, and everything was based on size comparison. So if you were greater than the size of your weapon it was considered light, if you were equal to it, it was a one handed weapon and if the weapon size was greater than your size by one, it was two handed. That'd have probably worked the best.
That was the rules! Holy shit, what the hell were you doing?
Random wrote:A small greatsword was in fact one handed for a medium creature and a light weapon for a large creature, and the same thing as a longsword. It was also the same thing as a large shortsword. And that was just dumb and overly complex.
Don't say "in fact" when you don't know what you are talking about. What you are describing is the 3.5 rules. In 3rd edition, a "Small Greatsword" was a "small weapon". That means that it was usable by a halfling in one hand.
Now, sometimes some jackass would write up a "Greatsword for a Small character (Medium Greatsword)" which was confusing, but that was non-standard nomenclature.
Random wrote:If size is going to be the be all end all, then all you need is size. You don't need "longbow" and "shortbow" and "longsword" and "shortsword" and all that other crap. You just need a size and a weapon type. Small sword, large sword, medium sword, huge sword, etc.
I agree. And that's the direction that 3rd edition was heading. 3.5 went the opposite direction however, and made arbitrary distinctions between "longbow" and "shortbow" more important across size categories. In 3rd edition, every small bow had the same range, and every medium bow had the same range, and every large bow had the same range and so on and so forth. So the name "longbow" was entirely flavor, it didn't actually have any effect on the game. A "halfling longbow" was the same as a "human shortbow" game mechanically, it was just flavor text that you could put on your weapon if you wanted.
In 3.5 it's not. The fact that a spear is made for a halfling can cause a spear the same size to suddenly start granting reach when it wouldn't have if made for a human. The name and the size are extremely important, and the size no longer corresponds to actual physical size in any way. It's a total step backwards in accessability and convertability.
Random wrote:large shortsword= medium longsword= small greatsword = huge dagger = tiny full blade.
No. It's "Large Shortsword" = "Large Greatsword" = "Large Longsword" = "Large Dagger". That was the dagger trick, remember? Every large bladed object was the same, so you could call your greatsword a dagger and make claim that you could use it with a simple weapon proficiency.
Your basic problem with 3rd edition weapon size rules seems to have been that you were mistakenly using 3.5 weapon size rules. No wonder you thought they were terrible.
-Username17