irdeggman said:Hmm if on a rules board for D&D then using those "rules" as the basis for the answer comes into question then this is obviously a "what if?" type of question and more suitable analysis and answers might come from posting it on a different thread.
Just a suggestion since the 3.5 game mechanics are pretty clear as to how they handle these things - changing those mechanics is an entireley different situation.
actually, that is not really accurate--short swords are not designed just for piercing, they were commonly used for slashing as they were sharp along the edges just like all swords are--the fact of the matter is from a dagger to a two-handed sword, all these are used for both slashing and piercing...Klaus said:A shortsword is a 2´ length of steel with a sharp point that focuses the strength of the blow into a piercing action. The edges of the blade are only marginally sharp, to help pull the blade out of the target.
A longsword is a 3´-4´ length of steel sharpened along the edges, with a heavy pommel to offset the blade´s weight and help swing the blade around from stroke to stroke, in chopping motions.
.
So now imagine that guy's a halfling in the second picture, and the sword has stayed the same size.Storyteller01 said:Thats an extreme example used for powergamers. The arguement is the use of small human weapons used by small races.
The penalty is only -2. That seems extremely small for a creature wielding a weapon designed for someone twice his size.'Common Sense' tells me that the penalty is exaggerated.
irdeggman said:Hmm if on a rules board for D&D then using those "rules" as the basis for the answer comes into question then this is obviously a "what if?" type of question and more suitable analysis and answers might come from posting it on a different thread.
sure, but if it seems the "rules" are wrong or illogical, isn't this also the place to bring it up?
I still don't have any kind of sensible answer to my original question, btw...it seems to me that what the SRD is really (or should be) saying is that the Hafling (as a monster) is wielding a short sword which the hafling is wielding as a long sword...
also, what about the fulcrum notion I raised regarding pole-arms?
It seems to me that's purely a holdover from previous editions, and that v3.5's weapon system is leaps and bounds superior in terms of consistency and simplicity.taliesin15 said:sure, but if it seems the "rules" are wrong or illogical, isn't this also the place to bring it up?
I still don't have any kind of sensible answer to my original question, btw...it seems to me that what the SRD is really (or should be) saying is that the Hafling (as a monster) is wielding a short sword which the hafling is wielding as a long sword...
Storyteller01 said:Thats an extreme example used for powergamers using obviously improbable weapons. The arguement is the use of small human weapons used by small races.
MarkB said:So now imagine that guy's a halfling in the second picture, and the sword has stayed the same size.
The penalty is only -2. That seems extremely small for a creature wielding a weapon designed for someone twice his size.
Storyteller01 said:Doesn't quite fit the arguement, as that weapon is several sizes over the critter, as opposed to one.