ExploderWizard
Hero
The problem is, by the same classification a long sword and short sword are the same thing and should be the same weapon.
For a D&D level of abstraction I agree. I prefer OD&D where all weapons do about 1 die of damage.
The problem is, by the same classification a long sword and short sword are the same thing and should be the same weapon.
The problem is, by the same classification a long sword and short sword are the same thing and should be the same weapon.
The different between the two is that a long sword is much longer than a short sword. The same difference between a rapier and a small sword.
Thus the idea that it should be under a different category.
Hopefully they'll put out a historically accurate module that has each sword listed from history, but until then we have to classify weapons the way they do in D&D and the small sword fits a lesser damage type and should thus be merged with short sword rather than rapier.
In the end, I believe the differences aren't significant enough for them to matter in D&D. If a player wants to say he's using a small sword, I suppose the best answer for D&D is to pick either rapier or short sword, and then just fluff it differently.
I still prefer the Old School Hack method of weapon classification. At character creation you pick Light, Reach, Ranged, Heavy, or Very Heavy (each has their distinct advantages and disadvantages) and then you as a player are free to describe what the weapon looks like, as long as it makes sense.
So if you want to call your light weapon a Small Sword, you can do it. Or, if you want to call it a heavy weapon, you can do that. As long as it could logically fit in either category, it would be fine (though it's fixed once you choose).
This allows a LOT more flexibility in character customization, without any rules changes.
I agree, that would be ideal. Then we could easily see that the small sword is very short and would therefore fall into the light category.
However this probably won't happen as D&D is a tradition based game where every sacred cow has its own temple filled with worshipers.
Of course none of this matters. Whether we are discussing small swords or rapiers or whatever the fact of the matter remains: 5E forces you to trade mechanical effectiveness for concept. A trade I personally don't like to make and pushes me away from the game.
For example in 4E you can easily play a light weapon light armor fighter with no problem. Various mechanical choices allow you to effectively do that so you can have a swashbuckler fighter in 4E with little or no problem.
You cannot do this in 5E.
Sure can. Just pump DEX and grab a light armor and finesse weapon.For example in 4E you can easily play a light weapon light armor fighter with no problem. Various mechanical choices allow you to effectively do that so you can have a swashbuckler fighter in 4E with little or no problem.
You cannot do this in 5E.
I disagree but I am tired of going in circles on this. So time to bottom line it - why are you responding to every D&D Next thread, if you've already concluded 4e is the game for you? And let's not play games about how you never said 4e is the game for you - you know it, and I know it, and everyone knows it, that you've already come to the conclusion 5e is not the game for you. So just bottom line it - why are you still doing this?
Sure can. Just pump DEX and grab a light armor and finesse weapon.
I just want to know how you made 'guide' with this kind of assumption filled negative attitude.
I have not concluded 4E is the game for me. I have concluded that I like games that are balanced mechanically. I like games that allow me and my players to trade mechanics for mechanics and allow us to choose our character concepts without trading for mechanics. I also like games that allow for interesting tactical choices on level up and during each round of play. It just so happens so far 4E is the only game I've found that even comes close.
However that aside. I'm here to point out where the design goal of "allow everyone to play the major play styles of D&D (including the one in 4E)." is failing to allow for the play style I describe above in the hopes that they will make many changes in the private play test to allow everyone to play with the play style they want.
Don't worry I'll stop posting about 5E when they put it out and it doesn't include enough of the tactical and balanced play style and I move on to another game. You've only got what 4-6 months before release right?
LOL I didn't even know what you meant until I looked at my user name. It's a meaningless thing. Pay it no mind. I assume it has something to do with how long ago I registered and/or how many posts I have. Which isn't particularly meaningful.
So you are going to play this game? Really? Look, nothing wrong with 4e. I played 4e for many years and enjoyed it. I used to be called a 4e fanboy on many boards, and also it's poster child, so you're not getting any 4e negativity from me.
4e is the closest you've found to the game you like. OK, but will you admit you've already concluded 5e is so far from what you like that 4e is extraordinarily likely to be the game you stick with? Or at least, can you admit it's almost certainly not going to be 5e for you?
Look, you yourself said recently that you were shocked when people actually agreed with you on something. You know full well your opinion isn't a particularly popular one. Which means you know equally well that, at this late a date in the playtest development, with you not on the private playtest nor a paid consultant nor even posting on WOTC's board, that they are simply not going to listen to you. So you've got to know all this effort you're putting in is absolutely useless, if your real goal is to use it to try and persuade WOTC to make changes to the game to bring it to the point where you view it more favorably than 4e or other games.
What would be the point of those extra months? How about once you're certain they will not listen to you? Or at least once you're certain they sent it to he printers?