Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vaxalon" data-source="post: 521764" data-attributes="member: 789">That would make all kind of sense, if there was such a thing as "inside a claymore wielder's reach."  A greatsword wielder can easily strike at someone who is standing nose-to-nose with him.  He can pivot and raise his arms, striking sideways to his body, or flip his grip and strike at his attacker's back.The fact is, the length of the weapon has always been a major advantage, which is why variations of the spear were popular for everyone from levies to professional troops well into the age of gunpowder.  A bigger weapon lets you hit first and hit harder.As for a dagger being quicker to wield in the sense of more strikes per round compared to a greatsword, that too is a spurious argument.  Because of the greater mass and huge lever arm, a strike with a greatsword need not require anything more than a snap of the wrists, and many, many of them can be delivered very quickly.On the other hand, a strike with a dagger involves a movement of the entire arm at least, usually the entire upper body.Ultimately, the whole issue boils down to this:In reality, smaller weapons don't hit first, and they don't hit more oftenIn game terms, the larger weapons are balanced against the smaller weapons already, and don't need any other balancing factors added.There's no game-based argument and there's no reality-based argument that sticks with regard to weapon speeds.</blockquote>