Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 7266547" data-attributes="member: 59848">Sorry, but maybe because I'm coming from a different perspective, but your answer is more like a &quot;no&quot; than a &quot;yes, but.&quot;The player didn't ask to use a &quot;longsword-like&quot; or &quot;longsword-flavored&quot; weapon. They asked to use a longsword as understood in the PHB. They asked to use their racial benefit with their class ability.To both of those questions you're saying no. And then as a compromise, you ask them to play with a dagger but pretend it's a sword. In a game that is already based in the imagination, why should the player pretend to use a longsword when they damage like a shortsword? How is it different to describe wielding a shortsword than a long sword? Are they going to constantly reference their superior reach over shortswords? The styles and usage are so similar, how would it increase the player's fun to role play a weapon like it's a couple inches longer and a bit heavier?The player isn't asking for retractable elbow blades like the Guyver, or fists that turn into anvils and wrecking balls like Battletoads. Those are situations where I would find suitable weapon equivalents and base it on the proficiencies of the character. Describing something as unique as in my examples is fun. Describing different martial attacks and techniques with sword versus axe versus hammer and what not is fun. Being able to flavor a bow/crossbow as a gun or ray blast is fun. But how does being able to their sword is a bit longer add to the player's enjoyment?&nbsp;The compromise you propose isn't a compromise. It's an appeasement, and a poor one at that. Because not only does nothing change mechanically, but the flavor change has very little, if any change to how that player may describe the character or role play their actions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hawk Diesel, post: 7266547, member: 59848"] Sorry, but maybe because I'm coming from a different perspective, but your answer is more like a "no" than a "yes, but." The player didn't ask to use a "longsword-like" or "longsword-flavored" weapon. They asked to use a longsword as understood in the PHB. They asked to use their racial benefit with their class ability. To both of those questions you're saying no. And then as a compromise, you ask them to play with a dagger but pretend it's a sword. In a game that is already based in the imagination, why should the player pretend to use a longsword when they damage like a shortsword? How is it different to describe wielding a shortsword than a long sword? Are they going to constantly reference their superior reach over shortswords? The styles and usage are so similar, how would it increase the player's fun to role play a weapon like it's a couple inches longer and a bit heavier? The player isn't asking for retractable elbow blades like the Guyver, or fists that turn into anvils and wrecking balls like Battletoads. Those are situations where I would find suitable weapon equivalents and base it on the proficiencies of the character. Describing something as unique as in my examples is fun. Describing different martial attacks and techniques with sword versus axe versus hammer and what not is fun. Being able to flavor a bow/crossbow as a gun or ray blast is fun. But how does being able to their sword is a bit longer add to the player's enjoyment? The compromise you propose isn't a compromise. It's an appeasement, and a poor one at that. Because not only does nothing change mechanically, but the flavor change has very little, if any change to how that player may describe the character or role play their actions. [/QUOTE]

Verification