Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MadScientist" data-source="post: 1005170" data-attributes="member: 5277">Spikey, as I understand it the answer is no. A small character would weild a medium longsword with 2 hands and suffer a -2 penalty to their attacks.The only compelling reason that I have heard for this change is that it will be simpler for new players.  IMO though this is fixing something that wasn't broken. I have some experience with this because my gaming group of six people consists of three people who have played DnD for years, one who was completely new to RPing, one who was a LARPer (but never table topped), and one ex-vampire player.There were many rules that gave the new players problems;  spell levels was one (.. but I'm second level, why can't I cast second level spells?) they really should use a term other than level, like spell circle or something; the bonus stacking rules still cause some problems (I can't use mage armor if I have a chain shirt!); grappling needs to re-explianed all the time. The weapon size and handedness has never been a problem for us though. Even the new players picked it up pretty quickly. If we do switch to 3.5 (and we probably won't) I can already see problems arising with this new system.  Even if it is more realistic, it is more complicated! I'm not even convinced it is more realistic.....I agree that weapon resizing could have used a better explanation, and some guidlines about how reach and weapon weight change with size.  A few holes in the weapon selection needed to be filled.  These are minor fixes however, the system didn't need to completely replaced with this clunky monstrosity IMO.</blockquote>

Verification