|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 12:13AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Why does strength seem to be the only one tied to size?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 7:17AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Having a "small" longsword, that is mechanically identical to short sword, just put apart by the name is the same as judging that short sword for human is the same as longsword for halfling.
having various sizes of the same weapon is over complicating and serving nothing except pissing players out:
P: "I found a new short sword. I think it's masterwork so I'll use it with my rogue"
DM: "that is not a short sword, its "small longsword", but you can use it as a short sword with a penalty"
P: "Go f... yourself"
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 7:59AM
#13
|
|
|
The same could be said the other way around. My Halfling wants to use a big sword, but can't because 'heavy' weapons only come in one size. Also, as has been stated, a 'short sword' is different than a small 'long sword'. Giving each weapon a seperate 'size' stat is just as complicated when dealing with Large PC's or size changing spells. Bigger weapons dealing more damage is counter-intuitive when HP are an abstraction.
What we are asking for is a system that lets PC's use the weapons they want without penalty and does not punish small characters for being small. Furthermore, in a simple game you can ignore weapon sizes without any ill effects.
All 3 of the physical scores should change with size. Str/Con should go up and Dex should go up. That is the historical reason for small creatures boost in AC.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 8:02AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
Also, as has been stated, a 'short sword' is different than a small 'long sword'.
To what extent? How is it different, exactly? Explain the differences (significant enough to warrant additional rules).
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 8:11AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
The same could be said the other way around. My Halfling wants to use a big sword, but can't because 'heavy' weapons only come in one size. Also, as has been stated, a 'short sword' is different than a small 'long sword'. Giving each weapon a seperate 'size' stat is just as complicated when dealing with Large PC's or size changing spells. Bigger weapons dealing more damage is counter-intuitive when HP are an abstraction.
What we are asking for is a system that lets PC's use the weapons they want without penalty and does not punish small characters for being small. Furthermore, in a simple game you can ignore weapon sizes without any ill effects.
All 3 of the physical scores should change with size. Str/Con should go up and Dex should go up. That is the historical reason for small creatures boost in AC.
small character should be penalized for being small, as they are usually rewarded in some boost to skills and/or AC.
also bigger and longer weapons deal more damage. It's physics.
also difference in "shortsword" and "small longsword" is only in balance point as one handed weapons have it closer to the grip then two handed weapons.
also it is very simple and intuitive to say:
you can wield a weapon of your size in one hand,
you can wield a weapon smaller than your size as finesse weapon,
you can wield a weapon of one size larger than you with two hands,
some weapons can be exception to this rules,
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 8:58AM
#16
|
|
|
‘Long sword’ and ‘short sword’ are terrible examples, to be sure, considering most of the folks who know about weapons don’t even want them to be separate. ‘Great sword’ and ‘dagger’ might be a better comparison. However, this discussion naturally leads to what weapons are, what they do and how they are used. I advocate that ‘short swords’ work best when piercing, ‘long swords’ get extra bashing damage when used two-handed, great swords provide reach-like opportunity attacks and daggers not only deal piercing damage but have much higher crit damage by virtue of how these weapons are used. I don’t want the ‘long sword’ to be a ‘medium sized ‘sword’’, because I want weapon choice to mean something. Though I don’t expect any of that to be in the core rules, I do expect a ‘weapons module’ where some of these options are explored. I’m also not saying that the previous system is ‘bad’, it worked fine in 3.x and the Arms and Equipment Guide is a great book in that edition. However, that style of weapons design (and race design) was highly restrictive. Halflings should make fine monks/fighters, Dwarves should make fine wizards. Saying Halflings should deal less damage with all weapons is restrictive and poor design. Saying ‘all small and medium weapons are the same because that’s what PC’s play’ is also a poor design.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 9:09AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
Avoided the question completely, I see...
Lets get blunt and specific:
Say, I am a human rogue. I grab my personal (human-sized) shortsword and hack at an orc.
Now say I'm that same rogue. I find a "halfling longsword". I want to use it to hack at an orc.
What's the difference between these two situations? Practically, mechanically or otherwise?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 9:39AM
#18
|
|
|
What can I say? I must be a born politician… So the ‘short sword’ and the ‘long sword’ don’t have enough mechanical difference to be different weapons. So we call it a ‘sword’ and let the size carry the rest of the mechanical burden. A ‘small’ sword deals 1d6 damage, a ‘medium’ sword deals 1d8, ect. Now there is no difference. Your Human uses the same size weapon in both cases. Now in a different setup your Human picks up a (medium) short sword. He uses it and deals 1d6 piercing damage. Later he picks up a (small) long sword. It is built with a different grip than his hand can comfortably use because the hilt is longer (for two small hands, not one medium hand) than his previous sword and the balance point is further down the blade. However, because he is both proficient with long swords and has a high Dex score he can take advantage of the extra slashing potential from the construction of the weapon and when he swings it he deals 1d8 slashing damage (despite the weapon being ‘short’ for him). However, Long swords don’t have a ‘finesse’ tag on them. That means he will have to use his Str for both the attack and damage rolls, despite needing a high Dex to even use the weapon efficiently. So unless he has high scores in both it might be sub-optimal to use a weapon too small for him.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 9:45AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
Hmmm... So your solution is to make the weapon categorization system so complex, nuanced and convoluted that it causes migraines?
Not sure how that can be a path worth pursuing.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 20, 2012 - 9:50AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
It is built with a different grip than his hand can comfortably use because the hilt is longer (for two small hands, not one medium hand) than his previous sword and the balance point is further down the blade.
Also, bwahaha. Bolded part makes my giggle. Had to point this out specifically..
So the halfling "longsword" has a "longer" hilt because its built for 2 halfling hands... even though those halfling hands are considerably smaller than a human's hand. So really, how much different in length is it? Really? Enough to warrant all these painful rules?
If both weapons are in the 2-3 foot length category, and roughly the same weight, how is it justifiable to bring in so much unnecessary complexity? They are functionally the same weapon, used differently by different creatures.
|
|
|
