anyone using 3.0 weapons in 3.5? [Archive] - Wizards Community

anyone using 3.0 weapons in 3.5? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
donm61873
10-19-04, 02:59 AM I find the weapon size rules in 3.5 not just stupid, but very annoying.
Wondering if anyone has used the 3.0 weapons in 3.5, and if there were unforeseen consequences?
JustKim
10-19-04, 03:39 AM I did for a while because I thought it would be a hassle and didn't really make any sense, but then every book since then has used the 3.5 size rules so I adopted them to save myself the even bigger hassle of converting everything.
Naeron
10-19-04, 05:22 AM No, but then I find the 3.5 weapon sizes more logical.
salamander
10-19-04, 08:40 AM No, but then I find the 3.5 weapon sizes more logical.Amen to that. Characters of every size should be able to build and consequently use all weapons for their own specific size.
Count Arioch the 28th
10-19-04, 08:54 AM It's logical until you have the halflings whipping out their gargantuan longbows and using them. :smirk:

Also, according to 3.5 weapon sizing rules, it's impossible to hit someone with a beer bottle unless you're tiny.

Don't get me wrong, I like the concept. But the rules themselves are really really wonky.
CruelDM
10-19-04, 09:45 AM It's logical until you have the halflings whipping out their gargantuan longbows and using them.

According to the PHB pg. 113 this is not possible, " if a weapons designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed or two-handed by this alteration, the creature cant weild it at all." In this instance, the largest bow a halfling could use is a small sized longbow.

Also, according to 3.5 weapon sizing rules, it's impossible to hit someone with a beer bottle unless you're tiny.

Also incorrect, same page in the PHB "A weapons size category isnt the same as its size as an object. A medium dagger (one sized for a medium character), for instance, is a tiny object. Instead a weapons size category is keyed to size of the intended wielder."

In this instance a medium character could wield it (its about the same size as a dagger for reference purposes), it would be a 2 handed weapon for a tiny creature and a one handed weapon for a small creature, light weapon for a medium creature, and large or greater size creatures couldnt wield it at all.
Shadowfax7
10-19-04, 10:12 AM I find the weapon size rules in 3.5 not just stupid, but very annoying.
Wondering if anyone has used the 3.0 weapons in 3.5, and if there were unforeseen consequences?

Note that the 3.5 DMG has an optional rule called "Weapon Equivalencies" which basically brings back 3.0 weapon rules for 3.5. :)
Naeron
10-19-04, 11:15 AM CruelDM is correct on this one.

In this instance a medium character could wield it (its about the same size as a dagger for reference purposes), it would be a 2 handed weapon for a tiny creature and a one handed weapon for a small creature, light weapon for a medium creature, and large or greater size creatures couldnt wield it at all.

Unless it was a Tiny or Large Beer Bottle of course :). "It comes in Pints?" to quote Pippin.
CruelDM
10-19-04, 11:45 AM So in the event you had a Large beer bottle, a tiny creature couldnt wield it, a small creature would wield it 2 handed, its a one handed weapon for a medium creature, a large creature could use it as a light weapon and a huge or greater creature couldnt wield it.
As for a Tiny beer bottle, (my character would be miffed if served this item in a bar :confused: ) a tiny creature can wield it as one handed, it would be a light weapon for a small creature, and a medium or larger creature couldnt wield it in combat.
Thorak
10-19-04, 11:56 AM According to the PHB pg. 113 this is not possible, " if a weapons designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed or two-handed by this alteration, the creature cant weild it at all." In this instance, the largest bow a halfling could use is a small sized longbow.
The point being that bows aren't listed as light, one-handed, or two-handed. They're listed as "ranged". And there's this little gem in each bow description; "You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size."
As written in 3.5, bows require two hands, but aren't "two-handed". You don't add 1.5 times your strength with them, after all. And since they're not in that size classification system, Halflings can use Gargantuan bows. They just need to use two hands.

Which is easily corrected by any DM with a brain saying "no, a Medium bow would be too big for your halfling body to be using. Stop being a munchkin." But technically, it's allowed.
Also incorrect, same page in the PHB "A weapons size category isnt the same as its size as an object. A medium dagger (one sized for a medium character), for instance, is a tiny object. Instead a weapons size category is keyed to size of the intended wielder."

In this instance a medium character could wield it (its about the same size as a dagger for reference purposes), it would be a 2 handed weapon for a tiny creature and a one handed weapon for a small creature, light weapon for a medium creature, and large or greater size creatures couldnt wield it at all.
This is exactly right. If you want an example, picture one of those double-shot bottles, the little ones you find in hotel minibars (but not the uber-small single-shot ones). They're too small to use as any kind of weapon, for us.
Now, picture the Austin Powers scene, with Mini Me wielding one of them little bottles. There ya go. That's exactly how 3.5 works.
CruelDM
10-19-04, 12:22 PM As written in 3.5, bows require two hands, but aren't "two-handed". You don't add 1.5 times your strength with them, after all. And since they're not in that size classification system, Halflings can use Gargantuan bows. They just need to use two hands.

Well then, shall we switch our focus on the ammunition? By the RAW an arrow for a gargantuan bow is considered a light weapon for that gargantuan creature, a one handed weapon for a huge, a 2 handed for a large and any creature of medium or less size couldnt wield it. So, not only could a small creature (halfling) not wield a gargantuan bow, neither could a medium creature. Additionally, because it would take 2 hands to simply wield the arrow, a large creature couldnt wield a gargantuan bow either.
Thorak
10-19-04, 01:48 PM Well then, shall we switch our focus on the ammunition? By the RAW an arrow for a gargantuan bow is considered a light weapon for that gargantuan creature, a one handed weapon for a huge, a 2 handed for a large and any creature of medium or less size couldnt wield it. So, not only could a small creature (halfling) not wield a gargantuan bow, neither could a medium creature. Additionally, because it would take 2 hands to simply wield the arrow, a large creature couldnt wield a gargantuan bow either.
They can wield the bow, and fire arrows just fine. They just can't wield the arrows as melee weapons, because they're too big.

I'm not saying this is "right". I'm saying this is a hole in the rules that has yet to be plugged, probably because WotC assumes any DM silly enough to allow it deserves what he gets.
Hypersmurf
10-19-04, 06:14 PM I'm not saying this is "right". I'm saying this is a hole in the rules that has yet to be plugged, probably because WotC assumes any DM silly enough to allow it deserves what he gets.

I asked CustServ about it when 3.5 was first released. They said "You're right... a reasonable house rule would be to say a character can use a ranged weapon up to two sizes larger or smaller than himself, at the normal -2 per category penalty."

So as written, a halfling can use a Colossal Heavy Crossbow at a -10 penalty (or in one hand, at a -14 penalty)... though he couldn't, perhaps, use one in each hand, since when using two heavy crossbows, they're considered one-handed weapons, and thus it would be valid to consider a Colossal Heavy Crossbow 'larger than two-handed' when trying to use two of them.

With CustServ's suggested house rule, he'd be limited to a Large Heavy Crossbow at -4 (or -8 one-handed).

-Hyp.
CruelDM
10-19-04, 06:40 PM I'm not saying this is "right". I'm saying this is a hole in the rules that has yet to be plugged, probably because WotC assumes any DM silly enough to allow it deserves what he gets.

It seems an erratta or FAQ that just made bows two-handed rather than just wielded in two hands would fix it all. Mechanically the rest of the sizing rules seem to work as expected, barring this one loop hole.

Incedently, are their any DMs that really allow halflings to wield 15 foot tall bows and tree trunk arrows?
Hypersmurf
10-19-04, 06:51 PM It seems an erratta or FAQ that just made bows two-handed rather than just wielded in two hands would fix it all.

So you wouldn't let someone use an upsized shortbow?

You'd also have to make bows two-handed as well as wielded in two hands (as opposed to 'rather than')... otherwise a downsized longbow would be a one-handed weapon :)

Mechanically the rest of the sizing rules seem to work as expected, barring this one loop hole.

Well, the size rules have a few other quirks, particularly when it comes to ranged weapons.

A Tiny composite longbow, for example, has a range increment of 110 feet... and yet a Huge composite shortbow caps out at 70...

-Hyp.
CruelDM
10-19-04, 07:22 PM Ok Hyp, your nit-picking now lol. Wouldnt an upsized shortbow be a long bow in effect? The ranges do need to be adjusted also. My reference to sizes working as expected was regarding melee weapons.
Hypersmurf
10-19-04, 07:58 PM Wouldnt an upsized shortbow be a long bow in effect?

No. Unless you're using variant rules.

A Large shortbow is no more a Medium longbow than a Large longsword is a Medium greatsword.

-Hyp.
Thorak
10-19-04, 10:50 PM It seems an erratta or FAQ that just made bows two-handed rather than just wielded in two hands would fix it all. Mechanically the rest of the sizing rules seem to work as expected, barring this one loop hole.

In addition to Hyp's comments, which are very relevant, a two-handed weapon allows you to add 1 1/2 times your Str bonus to damage. Which bows don't.

That said, the halfling with the Collosal bow is still taking a -10 penalty to hit, for the 5 size differences between the size of the intended wielder and his actual size. The second clause, that changing the weapon's difficulty to use, doesn't apply to ranged weapons like bows, meaning they can get this big penalty but still be useable. By the RAW, anyway.

A fair houserule would be either Custserv's option that Hyp presented, but that seems a bit much since a longbow should, generally, be close to the height of the wielder, and a 32' long bow shouldn't be useable by a 6' human, IMHO. Or even a 17', the lower end of Huge. I could, however, see a human using an 8' or 9' bow, if it's on the lower end of Large, and they're holding it at an angle. So my suggestion would be two sizes down, and one size up, but otherwise the same as Custserv's.

But that's still a houserule. Officially, small halflings can use Collosal bows.
Hypersmurf
10-19-04, 10:56 PM Officially, small halflings can use Collosal bows.

I just like the idea of shooting a ballista one-handed ;)

-Hyp.
CruelDM
10-19-04, 11:00 PM A halfling wielding dual ballistas................... :mymy:

so in the erratta, you just clarify that Str modifiers apply to only melee weapons or thrown ranged weapons.

(or composite collosal longbows with tree trunk arrows wielded by crazed halflings)
Hypersmurf
10-19-04, 11:06 PM A halfling wielding dual ballistas................... :mymy:

Well, as noted above, it could be argued that he can't use two... because as soon as he does, a heavy crossbow becomes considered a one-handed weapon, which means it's subject to becoming too-large-to-wield due to inappropriate size.

But as long as he's only using one, that clause doesn't come into play.

-Hyp.
Count Arioch the 28th
10-20-04, 09:51 AM I see that the bow thing has been cleared up by someone else, so I won't repeat it.

However, a beer bottle is a diminutive object. (A normal sized one is considered a diminutive object. Object sizes are different from weapon sizes, the size for objects determines it's AC, and what kind of animated object it can turn into.)

Therefore, unless you are tiny, diminutive, or fine sized, you cannot use the bottle, because it's more than one size smaller than you, therefore unusable. You would need a small, medium, or large object to use as a weapon. (To give you an idea, you would need a bottle at least the size of a typical halfling for you to be able to hit someone with it in battle, assuming of course you are medium sized.)

Now, you can throw that bottle no problem, the weapon sizing rules only applies to melee weapons. (In fact, the Hulking Hurler is based around that concept.) However, unless you get halfling sized beer bottles at your bar, don't think about hitting someone with it in game.

Or, you could assume that the 3.5 weapon sizing rules were hastily written and not finished, and either use the 3.0 rules, or finish the 3.5 rules yourself.

(I prefer many of the 3.5 rules, however, they aren't finished, and there are odd bugs.)
CruelDM
10-20-04, 10:57 AM Actually. when referring to the PH pg. 113 we see that the Count is incorrect about the bottle.
First, as I posted earlier, an objects actual size has no bearing on determining its weapon size catagory (begining of the 2nd paragraph, under weapon size), "a medium sized dagger (one sized for a medium character), for instance. is a tiny object. Instead, a weapons size catagory is keyed to its intended user."
Furthermore, on the same page, now under the heading improvised weapons (with an example specifically regarding a bottle in a fight, i might add), we see that we must first consult the actual weapon tables and determine what the improvised weapon most closely matches. In the text we see that a table leg = club, and a bottle = dagger. Which is what I compared a bottle to in my earlier post. A bottle is not diminutive, it is not fine, it is tiny in actual size, but for the purposes of a melee weapon it is sized for a medium creature. Restating my earlier post, and based off the RAW, we can now, without a doubt, summarize that a regularly sized bottle is a light weapon for a medium creature, a one handed weapon for a small creature, and a two-handed weapon for a tiny creature. Any other creature size is incapable of wielding it effectively in combat. Any creature that did wield it would suffer the improvised weapon penalty of -4, and any creature of small size would suffer a total of -6 to attack rolls, lastly, a creature of tiny size attempting to wield it would suffer a -8 (these penalties are based off the rules for using an inappropriatly sized weapon). A hit with the broken bottle would cause 1d4 damage, and threaten on a 20 for double damage.
salamander
10-20-04, 10:58 AM Therefore, unless you are tiny, diminutive, or fine sized, you cannot use the bottle, because it's more than one size smaller than you, therefore unusable. You would need a small, medium, or large object to use as a weapon.Not true. The size limitations are circumvented for improvised weapons: the DM is supposed to find the nearest reasonably equivalent weapon to base stats on. If the DM rules that nearest equivalent is a knife (and that's what the PHB suggest for this specific example), there is no problem. The only reason the RAW allow for an improvised weapon to be unusable is the DM deciding there's no reasonable equivalent.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
donm61873 10-19-04, 02:59 AM	I find the weapon size rules in 3.5 not just stupid, but very annoying. Wondering if anyone has used the 3.0 weapons in 3.5, and if there were unforeseen consequences?
JustKim 10-19-04, 03:39 AM	I did for a while because I thought it would be a hassle and didn't really make any sense, but then every book since then has used the 3.5 size rules so I adopted them to save myself the even bigger hassle of converting everything.
Naeron 10-19-04, 05:22 AM	No, but then I find the 3.5 weapon sizes more logical.
salamander 10-19-04, 08:40 AM	No, but then I find the 3.5 weapon sizes more logical.Amen to that. Characters of every size should be able to build and consequently use all weapons for their own specific size.
Count Arioch the 28th 10-19-04, 08:54 AM	It's logical until you have the halflings whipping out their gargantuan longbows and using them. :smirk: Also, according to 3.5 weapon sizing rules, it's impossible to hit someone with a beer bottle unless you're tiny. Don't get me wrong, I like the concept. But the rules themselves are really really wonky.
CruelDM 10-19-04, 09:45 AM	It's logical until you have the halflings whipping out their gargantuan longbows and using them. According to the PHB pg. 113 this is not possible, " if a weapons designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed or two-handed by this alteration, the creature cant weild it at all." In this instance, the largest bow a halfling could use is a small sized longbow. Also, according to 3.5 weapon sizing rules, it's impossible to hit someone with a beer bottle unless you're tiny. Also incorrect, same page in the PHB "A weapons size category isnt the same as its size as an object. A medium dagger (one sized for a medium character), for instance, is a tiny object. Instead a weapons size category is keyed to size of the intended wielder." In this instance a medium character could wield it (its about the same size as a dagger for reference purposes), it would be a 2 handed weapon for a tiny creature and a one handed weapon for a small creature, light weapon for a medium creature, and large or greater size creatures couldnt wield it at all.
Shadowfax7 10-19-04, 10:12 AM	I find the weapon size rules in 3.5 not just stupid, but very annoying. Wondering if anyone has used the 3.0 weapons in 3.5, and if there were unforeseen consequences? Note that the 3.5 DMG has an optional rule called "Weapon Equivalencies" which basically brings back 3.0 weapon rules for 3.5. :)
Naeron 10-19-04, 11:15 AM	CruelDM is correct on this one. In this instance a medium character could wield it (its about the same size as a dagger for reference purposes), it would be a 2 handed weapon for a tiny creature and a one handed weapon for a small creature, light weapon for a medium creature, and large or greater size creatures couldnt wield it at all. Unless it was a Tiny or Large Beer Bottle of course :). "It comes in Pints?" to quote Pippin.
CruelDM 10-19-04, 11:45 AM	So in the event you had a Large beer bottle, a tiny creature couldnt wield it, a small creature would wield it 2 handed, its a one handed weapon for a medium creature, a large creature could use it as a light weapon and a huge or greater creature couldnt wield it. As for a Tiny beer bottle, (my character would be miffed if served this item in a bar :confused: ) a tiny creature can wield it as one handed, it would be a light weapon for a small creature, and a medium or larger creature couldnt wield it in combat.
Thorak 10-19-04, 11:56 AM	According to the PHB pg. 113 this is not possible, " if a weapons designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed or two-handed by this alteration, the creature cant weild it at all." In this instance, the largest bow a halfling could use is a small sized longbow. The point being that bows aren't listed as light, one-handed, or two-handed. They're listed as "ranged". And there's this little gem in each bow description; "You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size." As written in 3.5, bows require two hands, but aren't "two-handed". You don't add 1.5 times your strength with them, after all. And since they're not in that size classification system, Halflings can use Gargantuan bows. They just need to use two hands. Which is easily corrected by any DM with a brain saying "no, a Medium bow would be too big for your halfling body to be using. Stop being a munchkin." But technically, it's allowed. Also incorrect, same page in the PHB "A weapons size category isnt the same as its size as an object. A medium dagger (one sized for a medium character), for instance, is a tiny object. Instead a weapons size category is keyed to size of the intended wielder." In this instance a medium character could wield it (its about the same size as a dagger for reference purposes), it would be a 2 handed weapon for a tiny creature and a one handed weapon for a small creature, light weapon for a medium creature, and large or greater size creatures couldnt wield it at all. This is exactly right. If you want an example, picture one of those double-shot bottles, the little ones you find in hotel minibars (but not the uber-small single-shot ones). They're too small to use as any kind of weapon, for us. Now, picture the Austin Powers scene, with Mini Me wielding one of them little bottles. There ya go. That's exactly how 3.5 works.
CruelDM 10-19-04, 12:22 PM	As written in 3.5, bows require two hands, but aren't "two-handed". You don't add 1.5 times your strength with them, after all. And since they're not in that size classification system, Halflings can use Gargantuan bows. They just need to use two hands. Well then, shall we switch our focus on the ammunition? By the RAW an arrow for a gargantuan bow is considered a light weapon for that gargantuan creature, a one handed weapon for a huge, a 2 handed for a large and any creature of medium or less size couldnt wield it. So, not only could a small creature (halfling) not wield a gargantuan bow, neither could a medium creature. Additionally, because it would take 2 hands to simply wield the arrow, a large creature couldnt wield a gargantuan bow either.
Thorak 10-19-04, 01:48 PM	Well then, shall we switch our focus on the ammunition? By the RAW an arrow for a gargantuan bow is considered a light weapon for that gargantuan creature, a one handed weapon for a huge, a 2 handed for a large and any creature of medium or less size couldnt wield it. So, not only could a small creature (halfling) not wield a gargantuan bow, neither could a medium creature. Additionally, because it would take 2 hands to simply wield the arrow, a large creature couldnt wield a gargantuan bow either. They can wield the bow, and fire arrows just fine. They just can't wield the arrows as melee weapons, because they're too big. I'm not saying this is "right". I'm saying this is a hole in the rules that has yet to be plugged, probably because WotC assumes any DM silly enough to allow it deserves what he gets.
Hypersmurf 10-19-04, 06:14 PM	I'm not saying this is "right". I'm saying this is a hole in the rules that has yet to be plugged, probably because WotC assumes any DM silly enough to allow it deserves what he gets. I asked CustServ about it when 3.5 was first released. They said "You're right... a reasonable house rule would be to say a character can use a ranged weapon up to two sizes larger or smaller than himself, at the normal -2 per category penalty." So as written, a halfling can use a Colossal Heavy Crossbow at a -10 penalty (or in one hand, at a -14 penalty)... though he couldn't, perhaps, use one in each hand, since when using two heavy crossbows, they're considered one-handed weapons, and thus it would be valid to consider a Colossal Heavy Crossbow 'larger than two-handed' when trying to use two of them. With CustServ's suggested house rule, he'd be limited to a Large Heavy Crossbow at -4 (or -8 one-handed). -Hyp.
CruelDM 10-19-04, 06:40 PM	I'm not saying this is "right". I'm saying this is a hole in the rules that has yet to be plugged, probably because WotC assumes any DM silly enough to allow it deserves what he gets. It seems an erratta or FAQ that just made bows two-handed rather than just wielded in two hands would fix it all. Mechanically the rest of the sizing rules seem to work as expected, barring this one loop hole. Incedently, are their any DMs that really allow halflings to wield 15 foot tall bows and tree trunk arrows?
Hypersmurf 10-19-04, 06:51 PM	It seems an erratta or FAQ that just made bows two-handed rather than just wielded in two hands would fix it all. So you wouldn't let someone use an upsized shortbow? You'd also have to make bows two-handed as well as wielded in two hands (as opposed to 'rather than')... otherwise a downsized longbow would be a one-handed weapon :) Mechanically the rest of the sizing rules seem to work as expected, barring this one loop hole. Well, the size rules have a few other quirks, particularly when it comes to ranged weapons. A Tiny composite longbow, for example, has a range increment of 110 feet... and yet a Huge composite shortbow caps out at 70... -Hyp.
CruelDM 10-19-04, 07:22 PM	Ok Hyp, your nit-picking now lol. Wouldnt an upsized shortbow be a long bow in effect? The ranges do need to be adjusted also. My reference to sizes working as expected was regarding melee weapons.
Hypersmurf 10-19-04, 07:58 PM	Wouldnt an upsized shortbow be a long bow in effect? No. Unless you're using variant rules. A Large shortbow is no more a Medium longbow than a Large longsword is a Medium greatsword. -Hyp.
Thorak 10-19-04, 10:50 PM	It seems an erratta or FAQ that just made bows two-handed rather than just wielded in two hands would fix it all. Mechanically the rest of the sizing rules seem to work as expected, barring this one loop hole. In addition to Hyp's comments, which are very relevant, a two-handed weapon allows you to add 1 1/2 times your Str bonus to damage. Which bows don't. That said, the halfling with the Collosal bow is still taking a -10 penalty to hit, for the 5 size differences between the size of the intended wielder and his actual size. The second clause, that changing the weapon's difficulty to use, doesn't apply to ranged weapons like bows, meaning they can get this big penalty but still be useable. By the RAW, anyway. A fair houserule would be either Custserv's option that Hyp presented, but that seems a bit much since a longbow should, generally, be close to the height of the wielder, and a 32' long bow shouldn't be useable by a 6' human, IMHO. Or even a 17', the lower end of Huge. I could, however, see a human using an 8' or 9' bow, if it's on the lower end of Large, and they're holding it at an angle. So my suggestion would be two sizes down, and one size up, but otherwise the same as Custserv's. But that's still a houserule. Officially, small halflings can use Collosal bows.
Hypersmurf 10-19-04, 10:56 PM	Officially, small halflings can use Collosal bows. I just like the idea of shooting a ballista one-handed ;) -Hyp.
CruelDM 10-19-04, 11:00 PM	A halfling wielding dual ballistas................... :mymy: so in the erratta, you just clarify that Str modifiers apply to only melee weapons or thrown ranged weapons. (or composite collosal longbows with tree trunk arrows wielded by crazed halflings)
Hypersmurf 10-19-04, 11:06 PM	A halfling wielding dual ballistas................... :mymy: Well, as noted above, it could be argued that he can't use two... because as soon as he does, a heavy crossbow becomes considered a one-handed weapon, which means it's subject to becoming too-large-to-wield due to inappropriate size. But as long as he's only using one, that clause doesn't come into play. -Hyp.
Count Arioch the 28th 10-20-04, 09:51 AM	I see that the bow thing has been cleared up by someone else, so I won't repeat it. However, a beer bottle is a diminutive object. (A normal sized one is considered a diminutive object. Object sizes are different from weapon sizes, the size for objects determines it's AC, and what kind of animated object it can turn into.) Therefore, unless you are tiny, diminutive, or fine sized, you cannot use the bottle, because it's more than one size smaller than you, therefore unusable. You would need a small, medium, or large object to use as a weapon. (To give you an idea, you would need a bottle at least the size of a typical halfling for you to be able to hit someone with it in battle, assuming of course you are medium sized.) Now, you can throw that bottle no problem, the weapon sizing rules only applies to melee weapons. (In fact, the Hulking Hurler is based around that concept.) However, unless you get halfling sized beer bottles at your bar, don't think about hitting someone with it in game. Or, you could assume that the 3.5 weapon sizing rules were hastily written and not finished, and either use the 3.0 rules, or finish the 3.5 rules yourself. (I prefer many of the 3.5 rules, however, they aren't finished, and there are odd bugs.)
CruelDM 10-20-04, 10:57 AM	Actually. when referring to the PH pg. 113 we see that the Count is incorrect about the bottle. First, as I posted earlier, an objects actual size has no bearing on determining its weapon size catagory (begining of the 2nd paragraph, under weapon size), "a medium sized dagger (one sized for a medium character), for instance. is a tiny object. Instead, a weapons size catagory is keyed to its intended user." Furthermore, on the same page, now under the heading improvised weapons (with an example specifically regarding a bottle in a fight, i might add), we see that we must first consult the actual weapon tables and determine what the improvised weapon most closely matches. In the text we see that a table leg = club, and a bottle = dagger. Which is what I compared a bottle to in my earlier post. A bottle is not diminutive, it is not fine, it is tiny in actual size, but for the purposes of a melee weapon it is sized for a medium creature. Restating my earlier post, and based off the RAW, we can now, without a doubt, summarize that a regularly sized bottle is a light weapon for a medium creature, a one handed weapon for a small creature, and a two-handed weapon for a tiny creature. Any other creature size is incapable of wielding it effectively in combat. Any creature that did wield it would suffer the improvised weapon penalty of -4, and any creature of small size would suffer a total of -6 to attack rolls, lastly, a creature of tiny size attempting to wield it would suffer a -8 (these penalties are based off the rules for using an inappropriatly sized weapon). A hit with the broken bottle would cause 1d4 damage, and threaten on a 20 for double damage.
salamander 10-20-04, 10:58 AM	Therefore, unless you are tiny, diminutive, or fine sized, you cannot use the bottle, because it's more than one size smaller than you, therefore unusable. You would need a small, medium, or large object to use as a weapon.Not true. The size limitations are circumvented for improvised weapons: the DM is supposed to find the nearest reasonably equivalent weapon to base stats on. If the DM rules that nearest equivalent is a knife (and that's what the PHB suggest for this specific example), there is no problem. The only reason the RAW allow for an improvised weapon to be unusable is the DM deciding there's no reasonable equivalent.