Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1330630" data-attributes="member: 2013">The one-to-one correspondence principle is not broken by templated creatures.&nbsp; A templated creature is not in one-to-one correspondence mechanically with another creature.&nbsp; I don't apply the &quot;fiendish&quot; template to an orc and get a hobgoblin.&nbsp; Heck, I don't even apply the &quot;level one fighter&quot; template to an orc and get a &quot;level one fighter-templated hobgoblin&quot; (differences in Special Abilities).&nbsp; I refer you again to the &quot;duck rule.&quot;&nbsp; If it slashes like a longsword, damages like a longsword, and crits like a longsword, for all intents and purposes, it's a &quot;longsword.&quot;&nbsp; In other words, if a bladed weapon can be used in one hand by a medium-size creature, but not a small-size creature, does 1d8 slashing damage, and crits on a 19-20, how is it functionally/mechanically different a longsword?&nbsp; If there's not a functional difference, why do we bother with a different name?&nbsp; That's what gets my dander up.&nbsp; It's counter-intuitive because it violates the &quot;duck rule.&quot;Again, I *do* see why it's useful, and I understand *how* the rules work, I simply don't understand *why* WotC chose to make them work in the way that they do when it is so needlessly redundant (and does *not* noticeably improve on the old system, especially on such things as light weapons... I am a medium-sized character... is a Huge Dagger (requiring 2 hands of me) still a &quot;light weapon?&quot;&nbsp; What about a Fine Greatsword (which I can hold in 2 fingers)?&nbsp; Needless complexity to add the &quot;light&quot; quality to weapons when the old way, &quot;if it's a size smaller, it's light&quot; worked fine).I don't think either of us is convincing the other... argument is an exercise that simply serves to entrench the interested parties more firmly in the belief that they are in the right in their position, so I'm going to drop it here.--The Sigil</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 1330630, member: 2013"] The one-to-one correspondence principle is not broken by templated creatures. A templated creature is not in one-to-one correspondence mechanically with another creature. I don't apply the "fiendish" template to an orc and get a hobgoblin. Heck, I don't even apply the "level one fighter" template to an orc and get a "level one fighter-templated hobgoblin" (differences in Special Abilities). I refer you again to the "duck rule." If it slashes like a longsword, damages like a longsword, and crits like a longsword, for all intents and purposes, it's a "longsword." In other words, if a bladed weapon can be used in one hand by a medium-size creature, but not a small-size creature, does 1d8 slashing damage, and crits on a 19-20, how is it functionally/mechanically different a longsword? If there's not a functional difference, why do we bother with a different name? That's what gets my dander up. It's counter-intuitive because it violates the "duck rule." Again, I *do* see why it's useful, and I understand *how* the rules work, I simply don't understand *why* WotC chose to make them work in the way that they do when it is so needlessly redundant (and does *not* noticeably improve on the old system, especially on such things as light weapons... I am a medium-sized character... is a Huge Dagger (requiring 2 hands of me) still a "light weapon?" What about a Fine Greatsword (which I can hold in 2 fingers)? Needless complexity to add the "light" quality to weapons when the old way, "if it's a size smaller, it's light" worked fine). I don't think either of us is convincing the other... argument is an exercise that simply serves to entrench the interested parties more firmly in the belief that they are in the right in their position, so I'm going to drop it here. --The Sigil [/QUOTE]

Verification