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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Moon-Lancer" data-source="post: 3087868" data-attributes="member: 35798">this argument isn’t to get something more powerful, its letting a small creature wield a larger weapon that’s in all respects equal to a weapon that they already use and using this human sized weapon in that way. I’m going to fully agree with Storyteller01 on this issue. a 1d6 19-20x2 human short sword is a 1d6 19-20x2 halfing long sword. Why the -2? as long as the weapon is wielded in all respects to its equivalent brother and you assume hardness is how you use the weapon (not raw but fixes the issue very nicely). For the med argument though, it would be equal to a large creatures long sword wielded by a med creature as a great sword. That silly Photoshop job isn’t showing 1 size difference, how many long swords do you know of that look like this?<img src="http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=17959" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /> this is using a extreem of more then one size variant to prove a moderat view of wielding weapons that are close together in size, and what Storyteller01 is trying to argue.This may have been a dagger trying to show that a dagger of Gargantuan size is silly, and it is, but it doesent even touch on the arguement about a short sword human sized sword to a small creatures long sword. Or even a human sized great sword to a large creatures long sword.In the end though, I think that’s why i like the full blade. I always saw a full blade as a full blade. A 2d8 weapon made for a med creature. Not a large bastard sword wielded by a medeam creature. Now just for fun, does anyone think a large creature wielding a fullblade as a bastard sword would take a -2?</blockquote>

Verification