Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1328149" data-attributes="member: 2013">If you laid a halfling greatsword next to a human longsword, they would look exactly the same.&nbsp;No, a giant would just look at a human-size longsword and consider it a &quot;dagger.&quot;&nbsp;This one I agree with... a halfling wizard unable to use a quarterstaff?&nbsp; Blasphemy! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;Agreed.&nbsp;True, but not logical.&nbsp; Look at Sting - an elvish &quot;dagger&quot; that a halfling uses as a shortsword... because to a halfling, it feels like a shortsword.&nbsp; I am a &quot;hulking&quot; six-foot-plus and when handling toy &quot;longswords&quot; made for my two-year old (thus scaled to a halfling), they're not &quot;weird,&quot; they're just &quot;shortswords.&quot;&nbsp;At the end of the day, I think the difference is semantics, honestly.&nbsp; What a halfling would call a &quot;greatsword&quot; is what a human would call a &quot;longsword&quot; is what an ogre would call a &quot;shortsword&quot; is what a giant (or Australian) would call a &quot;knife.&quot;Here's the rub, as I see it... In 3.0, everyone called it a &quot;longsword&quot; - that was the name of a weapon of that particular dimensions.&nbsp; A giant called it a &quot;longsword&quot; and knew that a &quot;longsword&quot; was really a small little blade relative to him.&nbsp; A halfling called it a &quot;longsword&quot; and knew it was a giant big blade relative to him.&nbsp; In 3.5, everyone calls it a &quot;small greatsword&quot; or a &quot;medium-sized longsword&quot; or a &quot;large shortsword&quot; or a &quot;huge knife&quot; or a &quot;colossal toothpick.&quot; The physical weapon remains the same; all that changes is the semantics.&nbsp; Which is kind of silly, if you ask me... why have several names for what is functionally exactly the same weapon?Personally, I think the whole thing is rather silly.&nbsp; Neither system is without its flaws, and neither system is a verisimilitude.&nbsp; That said, I prefer the 3.0 system... whether a giant or halfling says &quot;longsword,&quot; you know they're referring to a blade about 3-4' in total length, rather than having to scale up and down.What sort of blade does a colossal fighter use in 3.0 then?&nbsp; Heh... how about an &quot;ubersword&quot; (the progression for the prefix on the word &quot;sword&quot; going from &quot;short&quot; to &quot;long&quot; to &quot;great&quot; to &quot;stupendous&quot; to &quot;uber&quot; or somesuch)?Like I said, both systems are not without flaws, but I think semantically it's more attractive to have &quot;longsword&quot; mean 3-4' blades, not &quot;size 66-75% of the height of the speaker.'&nbsp; And of course, there's the whole &quot;reach&quot; problem... to take it a step further, does a Fine or Diminutive longspear have a 10' reach too? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />--The Sigil</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 1328149, member: 2013"] If you laid a halfling greatsword next to a human longsword, they would look exactly the same. No, a giant would just look at a human-size longsword and consider it a "dagger." This one I agree with... a halfling wizard unable to use a quarterstaff? Blasphemy! ;) Agreed. True, but not logical. Look at [i]Sting[/i] - an elvish "dagger" that a halfling uses as a shortsword... because to a halfling, it feels like a shortsword. I am a "hulking" six-foot-plus and when handling toy "longswords" made for my two-year old (thus scaled to a halfling), they're not "weird," they're just "shortswords." At the end of the day, I think the difference is semantics, honestly. What a halfling would call a "greatsword" is what a human would call a "longsword" is what an ogre would call a "shortsword" is what a giant (or Australian) would call a "knife." Here's the rub, as I see it... In 3.0, everyone called it a "longsword" - that was the name of a weapon of that particular dimensions. A giant called it a "longsword" and knew that a "longsword" was really a small little blade relative to him. A halfling called it a "longsword" and knew it was a giant big blade relative to him. In 3.5, everyone calls it a "small greatsword" or a "medium-sized longsword" or a "large shortsword" or a "huge knife" or a "colossal toothpick." [b]The physical weapon remains the same; all that changes is the semantics.[/b] Which is kind of silly, if you ask me... why have several names for what is functionally exactly the same weapon? Personally, I think the whole thing is rather silly. Neither system is without its flaws, and neither system is a verisimilitude. That said, I prefer the 3.0 system... whether a giant or halfling says "longsword," you know they're referring to a blade about 3-4' in total length, rather than having to scale up and down. What sort of blade does a colossal fighter use in 3.0 then? Heh... how about an "ubersword" (the progression for the prefix on the word "sword" going from "short" to "long" to "great" to "stupendous" to "uber" or somesuch)? Like I said, both systems are not without flaws, but I think semantically it's more attractive to have "longsword" mean 3-4' blades, not "size 66-75% of the height of the speaker.' And of course, there's the whole "reach" problem... to take it a step further, does a Fine or Diminutive longspear have a 10' reach too? ;) --The Sigil [/QUOTE]

Verification