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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="zeldafan42" data-source="post: 6955185" data-attributes="member: 6853887">Can I ask why this rule is necessary? I feel like it mostly just punishes players who want to play a Small race as anything other than a rogue or a caster.The way I see it, weapon damage die are an abstraction anyways. When I say my Gnome Paladin of the Sea weilds a trident, I'm not picturing her using a trident sized for a human, as hilarious as that would look. She's using a gnomish trident, made to fit her stature. A trident that may be smaller but is no less deadly.Besides, there's like, no correlation between weapon size and damage die anyways. A thin little rapier is just as deadly as a heavy battle axe. Not to mention, there is zero mechanical difference between that battle axe and a long sword or a war hammer.5E has a much more cinematic approach to combat, and a big part of that is done by making weapons more abstract. Trying to load lots of "realistic" restrictions on Small races and the weapons they can or can't wield bogs that down and mostly just serves to restrict people from playing Small races in certain classes, especially if you're not giving them anything in return like 3.5 and Pathfinder's +1 to hit and AC. If you're really that bothered by it, then I would just make a separate table of "Small weapons" that have a step smaller damage die, so a d10 weapon becomes a d8, d8 to a d6, etc. Not sure how to step down a d4...either a d3 or a d2 would work. Then just make it so Small characters can only wield Small weapons and don't be surprised if no one ever wants to play a Small race as a weapon using class.</blockquote>

Verification