Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Riastlin" data-source="post: 5570494" data-attributes="member: 94022">Yeah honestly, I just roll with it.  After all, where do you draw the line?  Certainly a 7 foot tall goliath could probably get away with wielding a 6 foot tall greatbow but it clearly seems to be a stretch for the halfling.  Ironically, I've never yet had a player who wielded a greatbow actually have their character be at least 6 feet tall.  Most were about 5 feet.  They liked the "cool" factor of the ranger having to tilt the bow in order to shoot it -- never mind that this would no doubt affect its accuracy.  In the end though, its just a game.  After all, couldn't they argue that they could just use a longbow and shoot particularly viscious arrows?  I know that there were many archers (particularly in Asia if memory serves) who would shoot arrows with little hooks on them so that when the arrow was removed it would do more damage.  From a practical standpoint, you've just accomplished the same thing as giving them a greatbow only not making them use a feat (at the cost of a little more money per arrow -- an amount that is likely to become negligible very quickly). So yeah, Rule of Cool rules the day for me and thus I don't have to make a judgment call as to just how tall a character needs to be in order to wield a particular weapon -- though I think it could be argued that certain weapons should give a penalty to stealth checks (after all that 6 foot sword is going to be a little hard to conceal).  Still though, until they do this whole scale, I'm not about to get into house ruling it since it will likely lead to arguments, etc.</blockquote>

Verification